Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
80 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (4 members, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,047 Year: 2,795/23,288 Month: 986/1,809 Week: 105/313 Day: 22/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 586 of 643 (871107)
01-28-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Phat
01-26-2020 11:27 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
OK, I get your point. We all should focus on action and optimism and throw the ancient made up warnings away, right? But what about the modern scientific ones?
Little Greta said it first: Why is nobody doing anything? Seems to me that human nature is self-destructive.

Many people are taking action on their own, as I have with solar panels and reduced car use.

We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030. Could be better but it a start, and it recognizes the seriousness of the situation.

It can only get better as more data rolls in.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:27 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 587 of 643 (871112)
01-28-2020 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Phat
01-26-2020 11:27 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Personally I have switched to LED lighting, walk or use a bike for most of my transportation and drive less than 2000 miles a year total. I keep my house warmer in summer and reduce the use of AC even during the winter. Lately we have been pushing 90F down here and it's still January. I've added insulation and more efficient appliances. I switched my electricity supplier to one that uses only renewable sources.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:27 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 588 of 643 (871436)
02-02-2020 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by RAZD
01-27-2020 11:41 AM


Re: another big oil pawn
From what you have (sort of) quoted I don't see anything of value, mostly regurgitated anti-renewable energy talking points paid for by big oil.

Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition.

Look at the oil companies admitting that they knew about their business being detrimental to the climate but continuing anyway, because profits.

The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this? The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes.

You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction.

quote:
A growing number of companies are leading this charge, using innovative approaches and partnering with
nonprofits to help contain climate change with urgency. Companies such as HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs and global cosmetics manufacturer Estée Lauder are putting their carbon footprint on a diet by investing in renewables, encouraging transport electrification and implementing other emissions reduction programs.

At the same time, they’re getting a boost from market incentives that make a strong business case to invest in sustainability.


For These Companies Climate Action is a Business Imperative

The more I look in that "wrong direction", the more greed I see. What do you think the main motive for HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs etc is, climate change, with profits as secondary, or the other way around?

Yes there are many possible ways to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. Yes transportation requires a way to get to point B without dependence on recharging batteries for long distance travel and trucking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy at all, or even as much as possible.

And a lot of people are doing things on their own. I have solar panels, and I have not paid an electrical bill since august 2015. That means they have already paid for themselves.

These things can and are happening, without government involvement. You made your choice without government involvement. Solar panels wouldn't work for me, my house is almost completely shaded by large trees. Sometimes they die, and fall down or I have to cut them. Then I use them for firewood.

https://www.jbbardot.com/epa-bans-most-wood-burning-stoves/

Who can tell what the future holds with government bans? Looks like my lifestyle could be in danger, yours is not.

Creationist types love when science is wrong, because they think it makes all science wrong and untrustworthy.

They don't believe it makes science wrong, but it makes political predictions, disguised as science, untrustworthy.

So yeah, dwelling on past failures and not looking at current success makes the video worthless. It's typical for cherry-picking information and presenting a misleading or false representation of the current science.

Current predictions aren't automatically successful. Many people see current predictions that are based on political asperations as being no different than past ones. The cherry picking of information that all the "bigs" that oppose big oil is obvious.

And that is politics, not science, isn't it? So we should welcome the people that are making the public more aware of the situation and the danger of doing nothing. Conversely, the danger of making the world a better, cleaner place to live, if say the climate change science happens to be totally wrong (which is highly unlikely), and making industry more accountable and eco-friendly, is what?

The danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES.

marc9000 writes:

The U.S. constitution doesn't give "real science" any more power than anyone else when it comes to making political decisions.

True, it allows absolutely stupid, self centered people an equal vote with informed people. So the issue is to make more people informed.

It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College.

Curiously, I seem to remember that the founding fathers were big on having an educated public that could make cogent decisions.

Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? I suspect it could be, but it wouldn't go along well with most climate change alarmists parallel beliefs about uneducated, non-English people pouring over our southern border, would it?

Note that several of the failed predictions were due to inadequate modeling of the ocean's role.

Any chances of inadequate modeling of the upcoming Milankovich cycle, or other future natural climate events that humans have nothing to do with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2020 11:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2020 12:56 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 589 of 643 (871437)
02-02-2020 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by RAZD
01-27-2020 4:41 PM


Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
Increasingly dangerous to life on earth in general and human survival in particular. For that reason it needs to be curtailed.

"BIG CURTAIL" - looks like the best way to refer to all the various opposition to "big oil".

marc9000 writes:

Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.

Except that it has never worked.

It hasn't? The U.S. is a complete, 100% failure? The rest of the world would be better off if the U.S. didn't exist? What other system of government works better? And where is it currently, or in past history, practiced?

marc9000 writes:

Yes it is, there's no way to scientifically document how political action will have any effect on climate change.

Wrong. Levels are being measured constantly, and anything with a positive effect will show up.

Will show up when, 100 years from now? Will show up in spite of some very possible inadequate modeling of other climate variables, like the Milankovich cycle?

quote:
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99 percent, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger.

It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2020 4:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2020 1:34 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 590 of 643 (871438)
02-02-2020 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 584 by Taq
01-28-2020 4:57 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Humans are short sighted and selfish, not necessarily self destructive. Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use, so we use them. It takes a lot of spending and infrastructure to switch, so we don't. We don't see any change in the climate or threat to our way of life in the very short term, so we don't worry about it.

Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Taq, posted 01-28-2020 4:57 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Taq, posted 02-04-2020 5:18 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 591 of 643 (871439)
02-02-2020 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Taq
01-28-2020 5:05 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
There are 3rd world nations making the transition to industrialized nations, and their fossil fuel consumption has shot through the roof. As more and more Indians and Chinese get cars when they didn't have them before, guess what happens? Also, there are feedback systems that continue to release CO2 from ocean stores.

I agree! The almost 8 fold increase in world population in only 200 years, third world countries finally making it out of the 16th century, I can see how these things have increased CO2. Aside from the fact that there is disagreement on how much of a problem it is, doesn't it make sense that there isn't ANY uneven blame, that is, no human or group of humans is/are more responsible for this than any other group? Why is it then, that Greta HOW DARE YOU Thunberg is the darling of the climate change movement? Why don't a significant number of climate change alarmists condemn her for singling out only certain humans for the perceived problem?

It's things like this, it's the enthusiasm that many show for this climate change PROBLEM, it's all the finger pointing that goes on, the claims that bigger government can quickly fix it all - there are just too many things that raise suspicions about the honesty of it all.

marc9000 writes:

Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.

Ummm, no. There is a reason we have labor laws, the FDA, the EPA, anti-trust laws, and banking regulations. It's because free markets can't police themselves, nor have they in the past. We already tried it your way, and it didn't work.

They co-exist with free markets. Yet they keep increasing, and free markets keep decreasing, even though free markets sustain ALL of it. How long before the scales are tipped, and free markets crash? A few more climate change regulations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Taq, posted 01-28-2020 5:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Taq, posted 02-04-2020 5:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 592 of 643 (871440)
02-02-2020 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by RAZD
01-28-2020 5:31 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030.

Source? Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon.

Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia

How will that be made up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2020 5:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by ringo, posted 02-03-2020 10:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 599 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2020 10:25 AM marc9000 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17924
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 593 of 643 (871451)
02-03-2020 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:49 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:

Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon.

Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia

How will that be made up?


Are you unaware of the concept of government? They can tax anything. They can tax the sun and the wind.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:49 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 594 of 643 (871460)
02-03-2020 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by marc9000
02-02-2020 8:58 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition.

Would you like to put some numbers next to those assertions? How much money does "Big Science" have? I know several scientists that would like to know ..., "Big Government" is currently in GOP hands, so that's a dead fish ..., "Big Democrat" - the only ones I see talking about CC are using the scientific facts as far as I can see.

And now it's a world wide conspiracy? Or is it a world wide acceptance of the actual reality of climate change? Curious how all our allies (including those Trumpski has yet to insult, and including those he has) are on board for climate change (ie -- Paris Accord)

The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this? ...

By providing a fuel that is cheaper than current gas/diesel production costs. Several promising alternatives, including hydrogen as well as better batteries.

Cut the big oil subsidy and switch it to alternate transportation.

... The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes.

... money that is supposed to go to transportation road maintenance and upkeep ...

It gives away more in subsidies to big oil and letting the companies get away with no taxes year after year.

You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction.

quote:
A growing number of companies are leading this charge, using innovative approaches and partnering with nonprofits to help contain climate change with urgency. Companies such as HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs and global cosmetics manufacturer Estée Lauder are putting their carbon footprint on a diet by investing in renewables, encouraging transport electrification and implementing other emissions reduction programs.

At the same time, they’re getting a boost from market incentives that make a strong business case to invest in sustainability.


For These Companies Climate Action is a Business Imperative

The more I look in that "wrong direction", the more greed I see. What do you think the main motive for HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs etc is, climate change, with profits as secondary, or the other way around?

Curiously I see companies making sound economic investments, ones they would not make if they did not think the investment was into bogus companies that won't make a return on the investment. The way things are currently working out, it is cheaper to build new generation stations with renewables than with fossil fuels -- it's a business decision, not a political one. This is also augmented by long term considerations of renewables becoming cheaper over time while fossil fuels are getting more expensive to extract over time. Remember when gas was 25 cents/gallon? I do.

These things can and are happening, without government involvement. You made your choice without government involvement. Solar panels wouldn't work for me, my house is almost completely shaded by large trees. Sometimes they die, and fall down or I have to cut them. Then I use them for firewood.

One alternative is to buy into a local solar farm, and if not available work to set one up.

Local electric co-ops ink deal for seven solar farms

Local solar farms can be more efficient than roof-top solar, and the people should be able to buy panels, the town provide the location and the electricity powers town and panel owners homes/businesses.

The danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES.

More likely to come from Trumpski deregulating the economy again.

It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College.

The general election theoretically takes care of the rest ... in practice not so much, unfortunately.

Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? ...

Thomas Jefferson IIRC

quote:
https://www.monticello.org/...-survival-free-people-spurious

Quotation: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, although it is a generally accurate paraphrase of Jefferson's views on education.


Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 8:58 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:11 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 595 of 643 (871462)
02-03-2020 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:13 PM


Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
marc9000 writes:

Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.

Except that it has never worked.

It hasn't? The U.S. is a complete, 100% failure? The rest of the world would be better off if the U.S. didn't exist? What other system of government works better? And where is it currently, or in past history, practiced?

The US regulates the companies, so it is not strictly free market. A regulated market is not a "free" market.

Actual free market is where the polluting companies write the pollution standards for what is allowed ... a GOP wet dream. Every time deregulation happens it is followed by disaster.

But we ALSO see Boing doing their federal safety inspections, and causing over 300 deaths because that oversight was inadequate -- put that down to free market failure, in the US.

Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger.

It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.

It gets politically stronger as public demand increases, through education and through personal experience (floods, fires, droughts) with drastically changed conditions.

It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.

-- video of Tom Ball --

Again, a flawed source not worth watching (unless you want to pick out what you think are his most salient arguments ... ):

quote:
Climate science deniers’ credibility tested - David Suzuki Foundation

In comments, letters and opinion articles, people spread nonsense from the likes of Ezra Levant, Tim Ball, Tom Harris and Patrick Moore. “David Suzuki owns an island with an oil company!” they write, among other absurdities — usually personal attacks that have nothing to do with the article under discussion. ...

Beyond containing logical fallacies and personal attacks, the arguments aren’t credible. That’s clear from a legal case against Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg geography professor with connections to anti-climate-science organizations like the misnamed, industry-funded Friends of Science and the defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

As the judge noted, “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views.” That says something about those who do place stock in his views, including the Trump administration, which invited Ball to Washington after the 2016 U.S. election for a briefing with the transition team.

Judge Skolrood also wrote, “despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.” ...


EG -- not worth listening to.

Enjoy

ps -- “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person" would IMHO be those who would check the credentials and credibility of their sources before embarrassing themselves by posting them. Just a thought, it only takes a 5 minute search to check. AND you know I will.

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:13 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:40 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8233
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 596 of 643 (871525)
02-04-2020 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:16 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:

Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things.

In many ways, that is true. Humans will harm their future in return for immediate rewards.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:16 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:42 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8233
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 597 of 643 (871526)
02-04-2020 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:37 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
marc9000 writes:

It's things like this, it's the enthusiasm that many show for this climate change PROBLEM, it's all the finger pointing that goes on, the claims that bigger government can quickly fix it all - there are just too many things that raise suspicions about the honesty of it all.

The good ol' what-about-isms. Distract, distract, distract . . . do anything but look at the science.

They co-exist with free markets. Yet they keep increasing, and free markets keep decreasing, even though free markets sustain ALL of it. How long before the scales are tipped, and free markets crash?

Regulated markets are what fuels the US economy, not free markets. Every single business in the US is regulated. No US company is allowed to dump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the local river, as one example. Guess what? The economy keeps on truckin'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by jar, posted 02-04-2020 7:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32167
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 598 of 643 (871531)
02-04-2020 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Taq
02-04-2020 5:23 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Taq writes:

No US company is allowed to dump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the local river, as one example.

Kinda!


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Taq, posted 02-04-2020 5:23 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20548
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 599 of 643 (871548)
02-05-2020 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:49 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030.

Source? Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon.


Sources is Gov Raymond’s State of the State speech.

It may not be enough.

quote:
Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why

There are dozens of climate models, and for decades they’ve agreed on what it would take to heat the planet by about 3° Celsius. It’s an outcome that would be disastrous—flooded cities, agricultural failures, deadly heat—but there’s been a grim steadiness in the consensus among these complicated climate simulations.

Then last year, unnoticed in plain view, some of the models started running very hot. The scientists who hone these systems used the same assumptions about greenhouse-gas emissions as before and came back with far worse outcomes. Some produced projections in excess of 5°C, a nightmare scenario.

This uncertainty over how to read the models highlights one of the central challenges of climate change. On the one hand, policy makers and members of the public are turning to scientists as never before to explain historic wildfires, devastating droughts and spring-like temperatures in mid-winter. And the bedrock of the science has never been more solid. But the questions vexing experts now are probably the most important of all: Just how bad is it going to get—and how soon?

Earth-system models are the workhorses of climate research, helping scientists test ideas about the impact of ice-sheet melting, soil moisture and clouds, all without waiting for the actual planet to fall apart. There are more than a hundred models used to forecast the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming, developed by about two dozen independent research groups.

One question modeling can help answer is called “climate sensitivity,” an estimate of how much warmer the planet will be once it has adjusted to atmospheric CO₂ at double the pre-industrial level. (At current rates, CO₂ could reach a doubling point in the last decades of this century.) This is the old, reliable number that’s come out to 3°C for 40 years. It was as close as anything gets to certainty.

The first step is to replicate actual conditions of the 20th century within the model; then you can trust the software to forecast the future.

The model run by NCAR, one of American’s main climate-science institutions, started producing unusual data last year while trying to reproduce the recent past. “We got some really strange results,” Gettelman said.

The scientists went on to try 300 configurations of rain, pollution, and heat flows—something they can do as gods of their own digital earth—before matching the model to history. But by solving that puzzle, Gettelman’s team sent future projections upward at an unheard-of rate. NCAR found that CO₂ doubling would lead to 5.3°C world, a 33% jump from the model’s past reading on global warming.

Soon there were multiple teams at other institutions putting out new climate-sensitivity numbers that looked like worst-case scenarios on steroids. The Met Office Hadley Center, the U.K.’s main research group, found a doubling of CO₂ would deliver 5.5°C warming. A team at the U.S. Department of Energy ended up with 5.3°C, and the Canadian model topped out at 5.6°C. France’s National Center for Meteorological Research saw its estimate jump to 4.9°C from 3.3°C.

Climate models have been doing a fine job projecting warming for a long time. A recent study compared models as old as 1970 with observations made in the decades since. Some models warmed up too much, and some too little, but 14 of 17 past projections turned out to be consistent with the measured path of global average temperatures.

“Particularly impressive” were models from the 1970s because there wasn’t much observable evidence for warming at that time. Back then, the paper noted, “the world was thought to have been cooling for the past few decades.”

To a degree, every scientist suspects their model is wrong. There’s even an aphorism about this: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers.

Klaus Wyser’s group “switched off” some of the new cloud and aerosol settings in their model, he said, and that sent climate sensitivity back down to previous levels. A new research paper co-authored by Zelinka from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab likewise pointed to the role of virtual clouds in determining the results.

In the next year, climate-modeling groups will peruse each other’s results to figure out how seemingly good improvements in cloud and aerosol science may have pushed the models into hotter states. These conversations happen in the open, through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and blog posts. The authors of the main UN climate-science reports will follow along and try to stitch together a big picture, for release in 2021.

In the meantime, Gettelman and colleagues around the world will push ahead. “It’s like a giant puzzle,” he said, “where everybody gets a little piece.” —With Akshat Rathi


“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

How useful they are depends on how accurately they model the known past, and how accurately they predict the future.

Currently the 27 models run from a low of 1.83°C to a high of 5.64°C with an average of 3.86 °C. — see article for graphics, my iPad can't isolate picture locations (or I don’t know how to do this), and my laptop is in the shop getting a hack & virus scrub.

So are clouds accurately modeled? One of the reasons Venus is so hot is the cloud cover. Should we be worries about other factors that contribute to cloud cover (smoke?)

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : fixed link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:49 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 4:13 PM RAZD has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1103
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 600 of 643 (871693)
02-09-2020 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by RAZD
02-03-2020 12:56 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
marc9000 writes:

Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition.

Would you like to put some numbers next to those assertions? How much money does "Big Science" have?

Here are organizations that claim to have an association with science;

ClimateWorks Foundation †
Conservation International
World Wildlife Fund
Resources Legacy Fund
Partnership Project
Pew Charitable Trusts
Ocean Conservancy
National Wildlife Federation
Root Capital
American Rivers*
Oceana
Blue Green Alliance
Population Action International
Alaska Wilderness League
Environment America
Izaak Walton League
National Religious Partnership for the Environment
Environmental Defense Fund
The Nature Conservancy
Sierra Club
The Conservation Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Parks Conservation Association
League of Conservation Voters
World Resources Institute
National Audubon Society
Trust for Public Land
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Earthjustice
The Wilderness Society
Green for All
Resource Media
Greenpeace
Clean Water Action
Union of Concerned Scientists
Friends of the Earth
US Climate Action Network
River Network
Defenders of Wildlife
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for International Environmental Law
Society of Environmental Journalists
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Rails to Trails Conservancy
Population Connection
Southwest Research and Info Center

Do you also need numbers as to how much money they have? Well, that would take some time, but here are a few picks from that list;

The Sierra club's 2013 budget was $97, 891,373.

Sierra Club - Wikipedia

quote:
Once dedicated to conserving wilderness for future human enjoyment, the Sierra Club has become an anti-growth, anti-technology, anti-energy group that puts its utopian environmentalist vision before the well-being of humans.

Some of its leadership positions are held by activists with radical ties and even violent criminals. The Club has done well preserving a “mainstream” image, despite its increasingly radical bent. And with an annual budget of roughly $100 million, the organization has the money and power to push that radical agenda.


Sierra Club | Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda | Activist FactsActivist Facts

Greenpeace's 2011 budget was $236.9 million.

Greenpeace - Wikipedia

The Environmental Defense Fund's 2015 revenue was $146 million.

Environmental Defense Fund - Wikipedia

Do you have any numbers to put beside your claims of "big oils" political interests? Unlike the above organizations that are 100% political, big oil actually produces a useful product that is willingly purchased in free markets, so you'd have to differentiate between their political money versus the money that's exchanged in their business activity.

"Big Government" is currently in GOP hands, so that's a dead fish

The house is in Democrat hands, and the huge increase in climate change terror in the past 3 years alone has been very effectively done by the above groups, and the mainstream news media.

"Big Democrat" - the only ones I see talking about CC are using the scientific facts as far as I can see.

And many of them, like Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, are not scientists. They often cherry pick only some scientific data, then take off with all their emotion and political bias in what they say. When I reference others who aren't fully credentialed scientists who do the same thing, you discard them completely because you say they're not scientists.

marc9000 writes:

The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this?

By providing a fuel that is cheaper than current gas/diesel production costs. Several promising alternatives, including hydrogen as well as better batteries.

Cut the big oil subsidy and switch it to alternate transportation.

That's not the answer to the question. If new machinery and methods are developed to replace fossil fuels, how would it be taxed, in a way that would be acceptable to the general public? If the switch is made to all electric cars for example, where would money come from to maintain and build roads for them, money that now is taxed from oil product usage?

Curiously I see companies making sound economic investments, ones they would not make if they did not think the investment was into bogus companies that won't make a return on the investment. The way things are currently working out, it is cheaper to build new generation stations with renewables than with fossil fuels -- it's a business decision, not a political one. This is also augmented by long term considerations of renewables becoming cheaper over time while fossil fuels are getting more expensive to extract over time.

I agree completely, and it can all be done without government intervention.

Remember when gas was 25 cents/gallon? I do.

I do too, late 60's. A time when the minimum wage was $1.60, a time when $10,000 per year was a nice income for a family of four. When a nice home could be had for $20,000. Adjusted for inflation, (and wasteful new government mandates) gas prices haven't changed all that much.

quote:
Quotation: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, although it is a generally accurate paraphrase of Jefferson's views on education.


He probably would agree that illegal, uneducated people pouring over our southern border is not a vital requisite for our survival.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2020 12:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2020 3:58 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020