Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[S'toon]

2009
Al Gore 'profiting' from climate change agenda

2013, excting oil money related deals
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

$300M and counting, albeit not exctly all from carbon trading
Al Gore Net Worth

You could wonder how ethical it even is for the carbon trading to be somehow allowed to generate profits for anyone.

When Al Gore did the rounds saving the polar bear from the very last patch of sea ice, the East Anglia University data and model of global warming were found to be flawed, and exposed to be intentionally fraudulent. Slaps on the wrists were given.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

We have always been educated on shifts in climates. It's been going on for a while.
Fossilized Tropical Forest Found — in Arctic Norway

Since the global warming scare, it seems all online sources with anything related to climate, are now drenched in carbon level retoric.
I was looking for dinosaur climates, as their fossils are found basically anywhere, and they were reptiles needing heat. Now we can read they died off due to carbon rise and "resulting" heat. But, they and plantlaife (?) were on the up again when exygen levels rose. Because if you're a modern scientist, plants eat oxygen.

As usual, the best leads are not IN the "scientific" article, but below it...
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Billion collected in carbon taxes. How many forests have been planted to eat all that scorching CO2, turn it into oxygen?
It's a big business, but what does Earth see of it?

If anyone can explain where we are in relation to the most recent and the upcoming ice age, and why we are to expect FLAT temperatures and FLAT CO2 levels, that'd be much appreciated. There is no proof I'm aware of that either were ever stable. Perhaps we should blame the sun more than the exact composition of our atmosphere? When if the atmosphere has it's obvious traits, it can't shield us from solar season influences. And I've not found evidence of climate "scientists" to account for any of that.

Taking matter from the crust, and making it self-combust for phyical movement is insanity with the state of technology we have reached. But would the Earth heat up more from the residual CO2 exhausted or 80% of the BTU having been nearly transferred into raw heat?
If we quit combustion of oil, petrol, coal, wood for just a single week, would CO2 levels drop? I'm not sure. Plancton and cows keeps on farting, people keep exhaling. But that's A HECK OF A LOT of pure HEAT not being reflected back off the atmosphere, whether CO2 plays a big role in that or not.

There's more than just CO2
Nitrogen Gas Vs. Carbon Dioxide
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Imagine we'd succeed to bring CO2 levels down. Would that even be benificial for mankind? A good chunk is genuinely hungry while other stuff themselves. We need vegetation to do better. And CO2 would vastly help. And that's well documented in fossil records.

<snip>Bell appears to have no background in climate science. His Forbes blurb states that "Weekly columnist Larry Bell is a professor at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption"; his University of Houston professorship is in "Space Architecture", where he is director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) - an institution funded by the Sasakawa Foundation, which was founded by Ryoichi Sasakawa, "rightist and gambling figure" who was "the last living member of a group accused after World War II of the most serious war crimes" (and "gave millions of dollars to charity").[3]; the foundation is chaired by Sasakawa's son.[4]

<snip>

Larry Bell - SourceWatch

<snip>
Booker wrote an article, titled "“The world has never seen such freezing heat,” published in the UK’s Telegraph, which purports to be a "shocking exposé of a blunder big enough potentially to bring climate change science to its knees." Yet, according to EcoWorldly, the article falls considerably short of its goal, especially in terms of its scientific integrity.[1] Booker was also a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics organized by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. His presentation was entitled, "Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing."[2]


Booker is frequently derided for his inaccurate and sometimes dishonest reporting. George Monbiot draws attention to Booker's attack on Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame. Mann’s paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Booker attempted to refute it by using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.[3] In December 2009 Booker (along with Richard North (blogger) made allegations of financial impropriety against IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. These were published in the Sunday Telegraph which subsequently withdrew them after a libel action[4]. In August 2010, the Telegraph apologized to Pachauri after accounting firm KPMG found his business dealings spotless[5].

To highlight the level of inaccuracy and falsehood in skeptical journalism the Guardian launched a prize in 2009 to be "presented to whoever crams as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change". This was called the "Christopher Booker prize" [6] The first nomination was inevitably Christopher Booker for an article about arctic sea ice with six errors in 900 words. [7]

<snip>

Christopher Booker - SourceWatch

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

 

[RichardC]

Genuinely, you seem like a smart man or woman. I enjoy reading your analyses in other places on TMC, but you seem to want to use odd arguments here. "The climate has always been changing" means nothing, and you know that. The question is more about attribution. Of the changes we see, how much is attributable to anthropogenic sources? Dismissing the changes as something that's "always been happening" is a hand-waving exercise that tries to distract from the reality of the climate models.

Al Gore's net worth means nothing, and you know that too. Even if he has made a killing from spreading the word about the science, and he takes a giant rocketship from place to place while living in an oil heated 50,000 square foot mansion in Antarctica, it means nothing relative to the science. It's a distraction and provides those who want to dismiss this argument with an easy reason to do so. But it's not reasonable, is it?

Well said!

Climate change denialism (in all of its various forms) seems to resolve down to two points:

First, the corrupting influence of the tens (or likely more) of trillions of dollars of fossil fuel reserves which will have to remain unburned in order to meet the global climate change target. See: Giving Up Fossil Fuels to Save the Climate: The $28 Trillion Writedown. The pervasive impacts of this influence (both direct, indirect and collateral) on our social, political, economic, academic and other institutions cannot be over estimated. Historical information about the climate change counter movement may be found at: Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort - DrexelNow and http://www.amazon.ca/Merchants-Of-Doubt-Naomi-Oreskes/dp/1596916109. A more recent discussion may be found at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/jour...l?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-change-policy. Among the obvious impacts of this corrupting influence are the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry each year, and the anti-science positions on climate change advanced by many fossil fuel-funded politicians.

Second, the validity of the scientific method, upon which our entire technologically powered economy and global civilization are based and built. The science of global warming applies physics and chemistry at a high school, rather than graduate school, level. GHG's (such as the CO2 that we are adding to the atmosphere in increasing quantities) have been known for 200 years to interfere with the transmission of infrared energy and thereby increase the level of energy retained by the earth and its atmosphere. The magnitude of the effect was known with reasonable precision more than 100 years ago. The final piece of evidence required to make manmade global warming inevitable was provided by Keeling in 1960. The scientific community measured significant impacts and raised serious concerns in the 1980's, and the scientific evidence, understanding and consensus has become stronger with each passing year. The strong scientific consensus on manmade global warming is now shared by every national science academy, science association and national government on the planet, and is consolidated by the IPCC in its reports. See: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf and Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In the final result, after exhaustive and extensive study, over a period of many decades, the global scientific community has determined, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that manmade GHG emissions cause global warming and climate change. In the absence of some revolutionary discovery in the fields of physics and chemistry (which the fossil fuel industry has failed to discover, despite massive efforts and trillions of dollars in incentives to do so), the science on climate change must be considered and accepted by the public to be settled, and the focus must turn to the challenges posed by the need to quickly replace fossil fuels as our primary energy sources.

 

[S'toon]

xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline

 

[Skotty]

Now imagine projecting those trend lines out to 2500, since the rest of the graphic is split into 500 year increments. Where would that put the current path?

Seriously, just think about it. Remember, these are Celcius degrees. The current trend, unabated, looks like it would suggest about a 20 degree average temperature increase by 2500, which would be about 40 degrees F average temperature increase. Armageddon. Potentially the end of life on Earth. If something isn't done VERY soon, there will be world wars over this in less than 500 years.

 

[ggies07]

For all the DFW peeps:

Meet the Texas billionaire and GOP donor behind the North Dakota pipeline controversy

 

[nwdiver]

For all the DFW peeps:

Meet the Texas billionaire and GOP donor behind the North Dakota pipeline controversy

We have an army of non-violent activists/protestors blocking that pipeline. They need our help. I sent them ~$600 in supplies yesterday including an electric chainsaw to help cut firewood as winter sets in.

Red Warrior Camp Amazon Wishlist

Sacred Stone Camp Amazon Wishlist

Legal Defense

If you want to make a tax deductible contribution I recommend Earth Justice. They're providing legal assistance which is certainly needed since ~40 more people were arrested today.

DAPL is a MASSIVE pipeline. With a projected capacity of ~500k barrels per day. Here's a great blog on why it's crucial that we 'hold the line'.

The 1st rule of holes is that you STOP DIGGING! We need to stop wasting resources building out these fools fuel infrastructure projects. This must.... end.... now. This far. No farther. Please help the Sioux hold the line.

 

[GoTslaGo]

We have an army of non-violent activists/protestors blocking that pipeline. They need our help. I sent them ~$600 in supplies yesterday including an electric chainsaw to help cut firewood as winter sets in.

Red Warrior Camp Amazon Wishlist

Sacred Stone Camp Amazon Wishlist

Legal Defense

If you want to make a tax deductible contribution I recommend Earth Justice. They're providing legal assistance which is certainly needed since ~40 more people were arrested today.

DAPL is a MASSIVE pipeline. With a projected capacity of ~500k barrels per day. Here's a great blog on why it's crucial that we 'hold the line'.

The 1st rule of holes is that you STOP DIGGING! We need to stop wasting resources building out these fools fuel infrastructure projects. This must.... end.... now. This far. No farther. Please help the Sioux hold the line.

giving credit to @doggusfluffy :

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

direct link to article:

Bad News For The Bakken As Obama Administration Blocks Pipeline | OilPrice.com

I am assuming it is the same pipeline.

 

[nwdiver]

giving credit to @doggusfluffy :
Bad News For The Bakken As Obama Administration Blocks Pipeline | OilPrice.com

I am assuming it is the same pipeline.

Yep... same one... it's crucial to keep in mind though that the pipeline isn't 'stopped'. There were more arrests today as protestors shutdown construction. The stop is voluntary and only applies to within ~20 miles of the Missouri river. Energy Transfer has already invested ~$1B in the right-of-way and other portions of the pipeline. They won't give up easily...

Their CEO sent this letter to employees today.

Without our collective resistance this pipeline will be completed... making Bakken crude ~$7 per barrel cheaper and digging all our graves just a little deeper.

 

[ggies07]

House Republicans Are Trying to Blackball the Climate Investigation into Exxon

Yesterday, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, heard arguments from a panel of experts—two of whom work for Exxon-funded think tanks—on why his committee has the authority to intervene in the investigations into Exxon’s denialism. B

but the real reason to pay attention to all this chess-like maneuvering is to understand how it affects research.

It also sends a signal to the public that science is an ideologically-driven process, like politics. And while climate science may be irrevocably political, the place to fight out scientific disagreements is in the peer reviewed literature, not a stacked hearing.

 

[S'toon]

The last gasoline-powered car will have to be sold by about 2035 to put the world on track to limit global warming to the most stringent goal set by world leaders last year, a study said on Thursday.

The report, by a Climate Action Tracker (CAT) backed by three European research groups, said a drastic shift was needed towards clean electric cars and fuel efficiency since transport emits about 14 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions.

Last December, world leaders at a Paris summit set a goal of limiting a rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 Celsius above pre-industrial times while "pursuing efforts" for a much tougher 1.5C ceiling.

"We calculate that the last gasoline/diesel car will have to be sold by roughly 2035," the CAT report said, to make the car fleet consistent with staying below 1.5C. It assumes the last fossil-fuel vehicles would be on the roads until 2050.

<snip>

Full article at:
Sell last gasoline car by 2035 to meet climate goals, study says

 

[nwdiver]

Full article at:
Sell last gasoline car by 2035 to meet climate goals, study says

What bothers me about that is the idea that there will still be someone looking to buy a fools fueled car in 2034...

 

[S'toon]

What bothers me about that is the idea that there will still be someone looking to buy a fools fueled car in 2034...

"Al Gore can have my dinosaur fueled car when they pry it from my cold dead hands! Global warming is a myth!"

 

[TheTalkingMule]

What bothers me about that is the idea that there will still be someone looking to buy a fools fueled car in 2034...

Meeting this 2035 timeline to some acceptable degree should be doable. Performance and price will be all that's needed to shift the entire trajectory starting in about 3-5 years.

Remember, the only reason we even have gasoline cars is so that a handful of people could sell gasoline. It's an inferior product soon to be priced at a very high premium, the market will do it's thing in relatively short order.

 

[dhrivnak]

"Al Gore can have my dinosaur fueled car when they pry it from my cold dead hands! Global warming is a myth!"

The Middle East and oil execuitives thank you as we want to let them down easy. I also wonder if you still have that perfectly good rotary dial phone at home?

 

[ZsoZso]

The Middle East and oil execuitives thank you as we want to let them down easy. I also wonder if you still have that perfectly good rotary dial phone at home?

Sure thing, it sits right beside my cassette tape recorder and VHS-tape player.

 

[S'toon]

Sure thing, it sits right beside my cassette tape recorder and VHS-tape player.

Not only do I have both of those things, sitting gathering dust in the corner, but a first generation Nintendo Entertainment System.

 

[ggies07]

If you believe in math, like I do, and think 2+2 = 4, then this article sums it up quite nicely. It's simple math. Another great article by Bill McKibben.

Recalculating the Climate Math

Scientists say that to have even a two-thirds chance of staying below a global increase of two degrees Celsius, we can release 800 gigatons more CO2 into the atmosphere. But the Rystad data shows coal mines and oil and gas wells currently in operation worldwide contain 942 gigatons worth of CO2. So the math problem is simple, and it goes like this:

942 > 800

“What we found is that if you burn up all the carbon that’s in the currently operating fields and mines, you’re already above two degrees,” says Stephen Kretzmann, OCI’s executive director. It’s not that if we keep eating like this for a few more decades we’ll be morbidly obese. It’s that if we eat what’s already in the refrigerator we’ll be morbidly obese.

So last year, when the world’s leaders met in Paris, they set a new number: Every effort, they said, would be made to keep the global temperature rise to less than 1.5 degrees. And to have even a 50–50 chance of meeting that goal, we can only release about 353 gigatons more CO2. So let’s do the math again:

942 > 353

But the problem is, it is that simple. We have to “turn away.” We have to “keep it in the ground.” The numbers are the numbers. We literally cannot keep doing what we’re doing if we want to have a planet.

 

[JRP3]

We literally cannot keep doing what we’re doing if we want to have a planet.

There will of course still be a planet. There may not be a "we".

 

[ggies07]

I definitely think this needs to happen. As the article states - our science and technology is improving and expanding quicker each year, while our policy decisions are becoming stuck in the past.

BEHIND THE PUSH TO HOLD A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON SCIENCE-BASED ISSUES

 

[ggies07]

umm....not good guys....should be at 350 or lower...

The World Passes 400 PPM Threshold. Permanently

At a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide is usually at its minimum, the monthly value failed to drop below 400 parts per million

The carbon dioxide we’ve already committed to the atmosphere has warmed the world about 1.8°F since the start of the industrial revolution. This year, in addition to marking the start of our new 400 ppm world, is also set to be the hottest year on record.