Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[S'toon]

The best job I never got would have had me spending 3 months every couple of years at Alert.

Weather watchers are focused on the world's most northerly community, which is in the middle of a record-breaking heat wave.

"It's really quite spectacular," said David Phillips, Environment Canada's chief climatologist. "This is unprecedented."

The weather agency confirmed that Canadian Forces Station Alert hit a record of 21 C on Sunday. On Monday, the military listening post on the top of Ellesmere Island had reached 20 C by noon and inched slightly higher later in the day.

Alert was warmer both days than Victoria, B.C., a Canadian go-to for balmy climes.

The average July high for Alert is 7 C. Phillips said that means the heat wave at the top of the world is the equivalent of Toronto registering a daytime high of 42 C.

<snip>

Full article at:
'This is unprecedented': Alert, Nunavut, is warmer than Victoria

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

For more than the last two decades, more than 97% of the climate scientists on this planet has been in consensus that humanity is behind the current global warming! Today that consensus is more than 99%!!!

And ’the rest’ have never had a credible alternate explanation...

Mobile phones work because of science!
Airplanes fly because of science!
Heart surgery on infants is possible because of science!
The international Space Station is possible because of science!

But for some surreal and completely delusional reason you just can not understand a 97-99% consensus among climate scientists…
/...

.../ Appeals to authority and consensus are weak arguments. /...

It's crystal clear to everyone here that you and "jrad6515" are nothing more than trolls...

But just to state the obvious: It's OF COURSE NOT about "authority".

IT IS OF COURSE about MERIT!

And your amount of MERIT when it comes to climate science is ABSOULTELY ZERO!!!

But again:

Just stating what's already crystal clear to everyone except you and that other little troll...

 

[traxila]

While I personally disagree with SwampGator conclusions and science, I don’t see the point in debating him, especially in this heated fashion. He agrees that we need to leave fossils behind. His preferred method is solar. We could just agree to disagree and work towards a renewable future together. Once we get it there it will not matter.

Just got 6.67 kW system installed on my roof in NYC. FINALLY! Been trying for four years now...but that is another story.

Hey, it makes sense to charge me BEVs during the day now so as to receive electricity directly from the Sun and minimize transmission losses. Is that thinking correct?

 

[jerry33]

While I personally disagree with SwampGator conclusions and science, I don’t see the point in debating him, especially in this heated fashion. He agrees that we need to leave fossils behind. His preferred method is solar. We could just agree to disagree and work towards a renewable future together. Once we get it there it will not matter.

Just got 6.67 kW system installed on my roof in NYC. FINALLY! Been trying for four years now...but that is another story.

Hey, it makes sense to charge me BEVs during the day now so as to receive electricity directly from the Sun and minimize transmission losses. Is that thinking correct?

Provided you're just not trading EV charging for A/C. In other words there needs to be enough solar to do both or you live in an area that doesn't require A/C. (Not sure where that would be now with Alaska reaching into the mid 30s). Then it makes sense. The beetles in the pudding: The car is likely to be not at home during the day, in which case it makes sense to have Powerwalls so the car can charge at night from energy created during the day.

 

[SageBrush]

Orekes is a good reference to study and understand the consensus.

This entire business of denialists trivializing expert consensus smacks of BS but I propose a thought experiment:

Let's say the situation was reversed and overwhelming expert opinion was that AGW was not occurring. How would the pharmacist and jrad respond to someone who was adamant the overwhelming majority opinion was wrong ?

Second thought experiment:
Let's propose that jrad is not a Flat Earther and he is arguing the round Earth theory. How would he go about it ?
5000 years of data ? That is not proof.
Consensus scientific opinion ? Hardly
Photos ? Part of a conspiracy

 

[traxila]

Provided you're just not trading EV charging for A/C. In other words there needs to be enough solar to do both or you live in an area that doesn't require A/C. (Not sure where that would be now with Alaska reaching into the mid 30s). Then it makes sense. The beetles in the pudding: The car is likely to be not at home during the day, in which case it makes sense to have Powerwalls so the car can charge at night from energy created during the day.

Don’t run the AC during the day. And NYC, the ‘progressive’ City stuffed with all the progressives of the world, does not allow for batteries such as Powerwalls on a residential basis. Or so my solar installer said after research. So I take it charging my Teslas during the day makes sense.

 

[SageBrush]

Is that thinking correct?

The better answer is dependent on what fuel is being displaced at different times of the day.

 

[traxila]

The better answer is dependent on what fuel is being displaced at different times of the day.

Don’t know if I can answer that. Probably natural gas regardless of time. They say NYS electricity is a quarter renewables and 30 percent nuclear.

 

[ohmman]

Never went there. I'm not high enough on the food chain to get an invite. Your boy Bill was pretty close to Epstein though, so nice try.

I've met @cpa and know him offline. I don't want to speak for him, but I'm guessing "your boy Bill" is a far cry from being correct. But you've got to admit it was a weird redirect regardless of veracity.

 

[nwdiver]

We could just agree to disagree and work towards a renewable future together. Once we get it there it will not matter.

.... because without wind, relying on market forces AND ignoring the external effects of fools fuel gives us AT BEST a ~20% reduction which is A LOOONG way from where we need to be and not nearly fast enough....

The market cannot 'get us there' before it's too late to avoid the worst effects of CO2 unless we price in the external cost of CO2.

And you really can't take any of their claims at face value; If the trolls were interested in a honest debate they would provide an alternative explanation to the observations....

 

[traxila]

.... because without wind, relying on market forces AND ignoring the external effects of fools fuel gives us AT BEST a ~20% reduction which is A LOOONG way from where we need to be and not nearly fast enough....

The market cannot 'get us there' before it's too late to avoid the worst effects of CO2 unless we price in the external cost of CO2.

I am with you, man. Was up to me, this is a matter of global / national security and the military budget would be on the block for the transformation. Don’t think I am too popular in that regard...

Swampy does want to leave fossils behind. Think of everyone who does not.

 

[nwdiver]

Swampy does want to leave fossils behind.

No... he wants the market to choose. The market does not want to leave fossils behind... particularly natural gas.

 

[EinSV]

Well that didn't take long.

An Op-Ed appeared in the Financial Times by the Chairman of Repsol, which is in the oil and gas production, refining and distribution business, encouraging more "practical" policies on climate change.

Rather than "demonizing" fossil fuels and following foolish policies like incentivizing electric cars or taxing carbon, we should just plant more trees. It's much more cost effective and sensible you know:

"We calculate 15% of the [carbon] tax on large scale reforestation programmes would offset the entire EU road transport sector emissions and serve as a carbon sink while removal technologies mature."​

See how easy it is? No need to reduce fossil fuels, silly, just plant trees and wait for carbon capture to mature. Piece of cake!

Let's set straight all those silly politicians pandering to the public and see if we can't persuade them to be more reasonable. /s

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

 

[jrad6515]

This entire business of denialists trivializing expert consensus smacks of BS but I propose a thought experiment:

Let's say the situation was reversed and overwhelming expert opinion was that AGW was not occurring. How would the pharmacist and jrad respond to someone who was adamant the overwhelming majority opinion was wrong ?

That is exactly what I deal with now. The real consensus is that AGW is not occurring. The fact that you believe in easily discredited "studies" from AGW cultists that purport to show otherwise is your problem. 31,000+ scientists agree with me, maybe a few dozen agree with you.

As for scientific proof, you need either empirical evidence of AGW or robust modeling with relevant variables controlled. You have neither. Temps are within the realm of natural variation, even the fraudulent 'adjusted' versions you guys love so much, and as for your models - please don't make me laugh.

So the consensus among real, objective scientists is definitely against AGW and you have no scientific proof but you do have quasi-religious faith in AGW so I guess you have that going for you.

 

[jrad6515]

Yay - lawsuit against fake AGW 'consensus'!:

"NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains."

Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

 

[winfield100]

Yay - lawsuit against fake AGW 'consensus'!:

"NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains."

Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

" in a list of donors to CEI's annual dinner, which included energy companies Marathon Petroleum, Koch Industries, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). [61]"
Competitive Enterprise Institute
basically trolls from the fossil fuel industry in various guises

"libertarians say 'i did it by myself' conveniently forgetting societies myriad contributions" that keep them from being fur clad. short lived, diseased primitives at best, dead in their early 20's

 

[SR22pilot]

I would suggest to actually read that Cook et all paper. It is garbage.
He looked at over 11,000 papers. Only 32% even express any opinion on AGW. 67% did not express an opinion. Then read what the definition of agreement with he consensus is. “To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1-3 in table 2).” It is that combined group, (“endorse AGW” on Table 4) that the 97.1% figure refers to. Hence that is the number of papers that, according to Cook et. al., implied that humans at least contribute to global warming. The number that imply that humans are the primary cause (category 1) is some smaller percentage which Cook et. al. do not report. In other words, if a paper even held out the possibility that human emissions were causing recent climate change, they were counted as part of the 97%

And lastly, the lead author is affiliated with the Skeptical Science website.

Science is not a democracy and it is NEVER driven by consensus. I read and communicate with real scientists every day who disagree with this "consensus"
Websites like skeptical science are put at the top of google searches and try and discredit real climate scientists because they have different opinions from the fake, manufactured consensus. Real science is always done by the skeptical. Watch out and beware of people trying to shut down discussion in the name of "settled science" or some other nonsense.

Certainly the surveys vary in quality but they agree. I prefer the work by Oreskes.

You say science isn't done by consensus but that isn't completely true. Ignoring consensus opens you up to any lunatic fringe argument. If you dismiss consensus then you begin treading into "It is aliens manipulating the environment" territory. For example, there is consensus on the overarching principles of evolution although details are still debated. AGW is pretty much in the same position. If I am going to calculate the projected flight path of a satellite then I am going to follow the consensus in physics and use relativity. While some weird herbal treatment might eventually be shown to be correct, if I get three opinions from doctors and they agree then that is what I will follow. Now before you say it, I am not talking about selecting doctors based on my knowing they will agree or disagree. The denial community seems to pick the few people who give them the answers they want. That is much worse than looking at the consensus.

Skeptical science does a good job of presenting data on climate science in an understandable way for the layman. If you have technical reasons for being dismissive then lay it out. If you dismiss them because they disagree then you are just locked into an opinion and not open to the science.

Having worked on big research before, here is my problem with the denier community. They act like there is some big conspiracy and scientists fudge data. I was a minor player on a big dollar project that huge pressure to show results but never did and nothing was faked. Everyone wanted Pons and Fleischmann to be correct. However, their experiments weren't repeatable and they got called out for it. Researchers have egos and there is little they love more than showing that a competing researcher is wrong. That is why consensus is meaningful. All of these scientists trying to show that they know more than others being forced by the data to arrive at the same conclusions. THAT is how science works.

I continue to challenge the climate denial community to do the following.
1) Pick a theory as to what is happening. Don't throw multiple ones out there. Pick ONE. You can't have it is the orbit, no wait it is the sun, no wait it is galactic arms, wait it is volcanos and get my attention.
2) Show how this covers what is happening including the rate of change in CO2.
3) Back up your theory with a measurable test to distinguish it form AGW.

AGW meets the above criteria. It explains what is happening.

Stop telling people to "prove" AGW until you are able to "prove" something else.

 

[SR22pilot]

You remind me of a little kid throwing his sucker in the dirt. When I show something contrary to your religion, you pout and scream over and over again the same thing, hoping someone will give you a new sucker.

All you seem to do is throw personal attacks. I have yet to see you give a link to a better survey showing there isn't a consensus among research climatologists. This is the old Merchants of Doubt methodology. You throw doubt without giving contrary data.

One day people will look back at this the same way we look back at the people explaining how there is no data that tobacco is harmful. Sadly, the damage from this will be much worse than the damage was from tobacco. Society will be forced to do expensive things when much cheaper things done earlier would have been just effective.

 

[jerry33]

Don’t run the AC during the day. And NYC, the ‘progressive’ City stuffed with all the progressives of the world, does not allow for batteries such as Powerwalls on a residential basis. Or so my solar installer said after research. So I take it charging my Teslas during the day makes sense.

Except for the power company lobbyists and their "donations".

 

[mspohr]

Well that didn't take long.

An Op-Ed appeared in the Financial Times by the Chairman of Repsol, which is in the oil and gas production, refining and distribution business, encouraging more "practical" policies on climate change.

Rather than "demonizing" fossil fuels and following foolish policies like incentivizing electric cars or taxing carbon, we should just plant more trees. It's much more cost effective and sensible you know:

"We calculate 15% of the [carbon] tax on large scale reforestation programmes would offset the entire EU road transport sector emissions and serve as a carbon sink while removal technologies mature."​

See how easy it is? No need to reduce fossil fuels, silly, just plant trees and wait for carbon capture to mature. Piece of cake!

Let's set straight all those silly politicians pandering to the public and see if we can't persuade them to be more reasonable. /s

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

How would a tax on reforestation encourage tree planting?