With the electrical generation, cleaner already happened.  The massive move from coal generation  to natgas caused a huge reduction in CO2 emissions in the US, and it all happened because of fracking (eeek!).  Fracking made natgas ubundant and cheap, utilities moved towards it for economic reasons. It provided better lives for entire regions in rural areas of the country. It provided thousands of jobs directly. A resounding net positive.

Natgas generation is one of the few traditional sources that can react fast enough to keep grids stable when they utilize large amounts of renewable sources. They can come online much more rapidly than nuclear or coal sources to react to the varying output of renewable sources.

We need to align an environmental good with the sustainability of a good economic choice. In other words technology that is environmentally positive also needs to be economically viable on its own.  Otherwise it's all just feel good bullshit that won't be sustained.

We do not pursue the green agenda in an economically viable way. Therefor I've concluded that it is fundamentally un-serious and is not to be taken at face value.  

Attached File



Gonna have to disagree with you that climate models have been fairly accurate. Looks like all but a very few have overestimated warming. They almost all err, and in the same direction.



ETA: There's another reason this graph is interesting, and it's not that obvious. But I'm going to go to bed soon, so I'll spill it.

It starts in 1979.

That's it. That's the reason it's interesting. Why is that interesting, you ask? Because 1979 was the last and coolest year of a ~4 decade cooling trend. Just like Biden didn't create jobs when he took office, the economy recovered... how much of the warming since 1979 would just be 'recovery' from a 4 decade cooling trend? How much of that should we really be worried about?

To quote SkillShot, "Holy Moly! What a bunch of...." I'll skipped the rest of it because it might be a tad unfair. I'm going to assume that everyone here made their arguments (that's being really very kind to some of the posts) in good faith.

I really thought this thread was going to die last night. Video of some "experts" who couldn't answer a 9th grade science question. I mean, they were fucking guessing at the answer!! Ridiculous, right?

But, this is GD, and this one turned out worse than that stupid Ukraine thread, IMO. At least in that thread everyone is telling each other subjective story lines based on false journalism, unknowable/unprovable premises and self-serving governmental statements. They, at least, got that going for them.

The way this thread went was surprising but only due to some of the people and their statements. I was shocked with one poster who has a lot of respect here double down on a weak-ass position. And another one who arguments were bordering on typical "progressive" pseudo-scientific sounding statements where in the sole purpose is not to enlighten, but to shame the other into surrendering their position.

In 62 years, I've down sciency and engineery type things (I love making things,) but I really  love economics, and economic is merely the study of human behavior in the aggregate.

So, let's see how a person with a minor in Economics describes Anthropogenic Global Warming!! I hope I speed that correctly.

If I were to go to a public square and ask people if they could describe the "theory" of AGW, what do you think the answers would be, and in what sort of proportions could we group them in? It's an interesting question.

My Hypothesis is that I'll have to change the name to "man made" Global Warming for the majority of people, and that is a facetious and snide remark, but also accurate, on my part. But, we're also down hill from here. Very few are going to be able to say, "CO₂ in the Troposphere forming some sort of insulating blanket and "trapping" heat below it causing desertification and rising oceans." And that's an easy hypothesis to document.

Mostly I'll just get "too much CO₂ ." That's all they know. Meaningless statement. You could ask the follow up question "too much relative to what?" But, I suspect there won't be a cogent reply.

The problem is, and it's a huge problem, is that's all this AGW movement wants them to know. So, The Movement is very happy with that answer from everyday chuckle-heads. That's why the debate is over. Any more debate, and people may start thinking. Those thoughts may cause doubts. Doubts are bad because if doubters are not shamed into silence then they will eventually start doubting the character of their precious political leaders. That's bad, Gentleman. The name for this is "counter-revolutionary." It's the worse. Literally tens of millions of humans have been executed for that very reason. Don't do it! Stay in School.

There is a crisis in Science, and there has been one for many decades. Sure, it started with the Soviets, and all those wild propaganda claims being the first to do this, and that or the other, but their fellow-travelers the World over took up those protocols as well. Many scientific experiments can't be replicated. Sure the original experiment write ups get peer reviewed when thy make the right political conclusions while others are dismissed because they came to the incorrect political conclusions. Good Science is another way of expressing correct Politics. We just went through this with Covid. Some of you may remember that period in time oh so long ago.

This planet has seen 9 mass extinctions in 4.5 billion years. No doubt, we'll be the 10th, but it's not going to be because the new Hellcat pumps out extra CO₂ through its converters . That's either wishful thinking on some people's part or coercive manipulation by others. And before someone gets their panties in a bunch or shoveling sand in their vagina so they can be offended, no, I'm not saying it's okay to pollute, Bitches.

I'm still not getting the comparison to an aquarium. Should we periodically dump a quart of Quaker State in there as well as shake the fucker up simulating continental plate movement and Storms, and then chronicle how or if the aquarium goes back to the owner's preferred stasis without intervention?

That's the problem with picking a day, a year, an eon or an epoch and holding it in ceteris paribus, and then extrapolating from it. There's now raw data from back then!!!!! There are only artifacts that are interpreted narrowly or fantastically or somewhere in between.

I'm glad to hear you don't advocate for our destruction...but the green movement absolutely does. Either by malice or ignorance or some combination we are headed in that direction at break neck speed.

It has all the markers of a religious movement and the end is nigh making radical actions acceptable where they otherwise wouldn't be.

Burning 3 or 4 old semi-truck tires is the only proper way to celebrate Earth Day.

Just like shooting a Commie for Mommie is the only proper way to celebrate May Day.

Minimizing negative impacts isn't free, and the same cost and effort placed in another area may indead yield greater benefits, which would make such a course of action a net hindrance, not a benefit.  Further you posit an actual effect on the negative impacts, when there is no way, repeat NO WAY, Chona, India, Pakistan, Africa,  and South America are going to consent for their people to continue to live in poverty to chase an ephemeral goil of lower carbon emmissions, so the whole scam is a non-starter.

The choices for the 3rd World aren't "electric car or hybrid" - they are "starve to death or freeze to death".

Can't we just double up on both the tire burning and commie elimination at the same time and claim we are ''green'' by using the ''two birds with one stone theory?" We can also save valuable and scarce ammunition at the same time.................

There are proxies, but they are problematic, moreso when a "researcher" has an axe to grind - see "hockystick graph".  Then there is the subversion of science to push an agenda - see "Climategate".  All made easier when the original raw data has been destroyed - all we have is the "value added" (read altered) data.  How was the "value" added?  What process was used to make sure that it really was "value added" and thus could be reversed to get the original data back?  Don't know.  When was the thermometer invented?  early 1700's wasn't it?  How long for them to be built and distributed, much less calibrated?  A while.  Where did most of the early temperature readings come from?  Ships.  Did they really read them to the nearest hundreth of a degree?  Nearest 10th?  Or were they more concerned with whether there would be fog or icebergs, or fish?   Don't know.

Lysenkoism is alive and well, and if you don't know what that is, you are part of the problem - not part of the solution.

I'm down - I think it is called "necklacing" in South Africa.

Yeah, 1978 was the end of a 'mini ice age'.  (It was also the year of monster blizzards across the country, although of course that's just one data point on a graph).

There was a lot of stuff like this going on in 1978:

So much this.

Deliberately hamstringing the parts of the world best able and positioned to develop technologies vital to the whole world is beyond dumb.

Your study is garbage.

Heat from additional CO2 will build at high altitude and can only reach low altitude via convection or radiation. The high altitude warming has to happen first. It should show up in the satellite and balloon data before it is measured on the ground. You are claiming a heat buildup that isn't reflected in either temps or what is going on at high altitude where the global warming should begin.

Ok. We are in agreement.

Climate change will go down as one of the greatest hoaxes ever.

Well of course climate change is real. The hoax is that humans precipitated this particular climate change whatever and whenever it may occur.

Hmmm, back in the stone ages we attributed the Greenhouse effect to the infrared radiant heat that doesn't penetrate the glass in your car or greenhouse as the reason your car or green house is so hot in summertime.  

BTW the infrared is also reflected back to earth from the clouds (water vapor).

To be a little more clear or transparent and in response to the tire burning comment above this post. I am only speaking from what I know and have tried to learn, what I have seen with my own eyes, in the ocean I dive in regularly, and the basic chemistry involved in keeping aquariums viable and thriving as it relates to the ocean environment and water parameters. Maybe its worthwhile discussion and maybe its not. What I choose to do are the ethical decisions I make for myself because I feel that some things are worth saving and seeing things like reefs and oceans in decline is pretty disheartening. Its something done not only to preserve it for my own enjoyment but its obviously something that many other should and do enjoy as well. With that being said Im not trying to jump into anyone elses lives to tell them how to live, My choices are personal, for me, because at the end of the day I have to live with myself. I have a 30+ year old friend with a doctorate in marine biology and we have spoken at great length on lots of issues especially local water quality issues. This person looks at the data and science objectively and has no political gain or lean in his findings. For example he is one of the few on the tail end of being issued commercial harvesting licenses. In the 80s we had a wave of clammers dredge the river with their rakes destroying the grass beds that replenished, filtered and kept the lagoon clean. He saw what the damage doing as an early college student coming from a family of fishermen and understood the value of the ecology and fisheries so he chose to scuba dive for them and hand pluck them not disturbing the grass beds. He made a living and put himself thru school on that while those men on boats raped the earth. 30 years later and those grass beds have never fully recovered contributing to further decline in water quality, fisheries, and nursery habitats. He has worked with both dem and rep administrations and districts to help undo/repair a hundred years of devastating poorly planned development. His findings arent some pseudo science and his proposed changes arent trying to destroy industries or livelihoods. I knew another commercial fisherman that dived the reefs and used bleach in squeeze bottles to flush lobster and grouper out of deep holes. Pure fucking scumbag action on his part. We are the stewards of this earth and how we leave it reflects upon us and every person has to live with themselves. I suspect you burning tires to celebrate earth day is probably a joke, and even if its not... thats on you the way I see it, lol... I cannot control you or others, the leftist enviro wackos, our government, or the population/governments of the worst polluters on the earth. I do know we will never have an honest discussion or real solutions to real problems as long as both factions on either side are unwilling to do better for the right reasons that make the most sense for everyone and the world we live in.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort, I'm only telling you what observations indicate. The heat buildup is specifically reflected in observed temps.

I think you need to read a basic paper on how all this works, from a journal not a blog.

Every word of that is nonsense. The upper atmosphere gets colder as CO2 increases, that's why there is warming, the planet can't radiate as efficiently.

It wasn't just "one person" the got one "detail" wrong.  It was the National Park Service, a branch of the Department of the Interior, US Government.  So the US Gov took/created results of a BS study and ran with it in order to rachet up the global warming hysteria to advance their political agenda.  Do you understand me correctly?

Wow.  That was... something.  Seriously, no.  You maybe need a bit more education before speaking in public.

Given the calculations cited in the linked article, virtually no 'practical' amount of action on the part of humanity will seemingly "fix" the problem in the near term.

And therein lies the issue:   'practical' action is defined differently by various groups.  

1.  The environmental coalition wants us to make actions that would wind up pushing our civilization back to resemble that of the 19th century.  (And even then, it would take DECADES to see measurable results, based on the article.)

2.  The political group wants the developed nations to make "some" sacrifices, yet wants to allow the "developing nations" to continue to increase energy usage at rates that actually EXCEED the developed nations, by a fair margin.  This is the "smoke and mirrors" approach, were it looks like humanity is doing something, but really are not.

3.  The "status quo" group wants us to "stay the course" with our current behaviors, and suggests we will adapt to the changing world using technology.  Whether this will work remains to be seen.

Needless to say, because of all the competing voices, the ones with the most money are the ones getting heard loudest.   So what we have happening is the political ruling class is calling for western nations to make substantial changes, while letting the rest of the globe "catch up", economically.   The end result will be economic suffering in the developed nations, and no practical change in the global environmental trajectory.

There is nothing like politics to completely destroy any chance of a practical solution.

As CO2 goes to a higher level, the temperature profile warms because the CO2 captures heat. I'm familiar with adiabatic lapse rates. The CO2 alters the lapse rate.

There is no practical short term solution. What you are describing is various competing interests trying to use a perceived crisis to further their own objectives.

Frankly I don't know any of the science behind either side of this argument. I do know that the people screaming the loudest about climate change don't behave how they are asking everyone else to. I still need an affordable car and electricity to make modern life work, fossil fuels are the key to that happening at this time.

Lysenko!!! I actually forgot about that crazy Bastard!!! Species Transformation for the Win!

I was implying about the disregard for control groups and avoiding statistical analysis so as not to contradict Political Theory! But I wouldn't be surprised if Lysenko was involved or even instrumental in the destruction of the Scientific Method based on ideological dogma. I've seen a photo of him. Dude looked crazy.

Large and old trees do indeed increase in mass in much greater amounts than small trees do, at least to a point.

However, it's not possible to plant an old tree, let alone in great quantities.  So even if an older tree adds mass at 100x the rate of a sapling every year, it's a trivial operation to plant 100 saplings.  It's not even difficult to plant 10,000 saplings.  Weyerhaeuser plants 130 million plus trees EVERY YEAR.

So the increase in leaf mass is significant, if not immediately, but years down the road.

Everyone should be happy to note that as the northern hemisphere enters spring, the levels of CO2 drop and O2 increases slightly worldwide.

The earth takes a deep breath this time of year.

Bri g on all the natgas based fertilizer! We got CO2 to eat.

Biggest indicator is the lack of a push for nuke power. The clear solution for grid power is nukes, if you believe CO2 is a problem.

CO2 is rising. This is not due to human activity.

Month CO2 measurment

Go to the interactive plots tab on the Mauna Loa Observatory data. There is zero change with the COVID shut downs. No Airplanes flying for months. That is a 27 Kg of CO₂ emissions per seat, per aircraft reduction (just air travel alone) that does not appear on the graph.

The earth has normal carbon dioxide cycles that are independent of human activity.

I am guessing they would be independent of taxation as well.

Not to mention, climate scientists could always have flagged it as being wrong. But instead they sit back and allow the likes of Al gore to push claims of warming that far exceed the science.

That's the basis of Steven Koonin's book, which is 100% based on the "establishment science" of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, etc. His basic argument is that the danger of AGW is amplified at each level of communication starting with the summaries.

Dr Richard Lindzen, who was lead author of one of the IPCC reports, states that the summary is written by different people and is written before the actual report. Incidentally, at least two editors who published his papers were fired for doing so. CAGW is politics, not science. Hence why I use the term "establishment science". You can't have real science if certain conclusions are not allowed.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/

There are large forces that are relatively ignored in favor of CO2

The even bigger oddity is no dramatic acceleration in the rate with major sources like China and India modernizing to the point where they start rapidly increasing CO2 emissions.   I would have expected a spike in the rate from the 90s to now.  There is some steepening of the slope after the 90s, the slope flattened out in the 90s then became slightly steeper than previous decades.

What happened in the 90s to flatten things out?

Three years ago,

Thomas Massie grills John Kerry on “climate change”.

Yeah.

If you note they always talk about doubling CO2 in the "next century" and then talk about 2100 (the last year of this century). In fact at the current rate it is more like 170 years from now (with the clock started a couple of years ago).

They might be assuming an accelerated rate due to China, Africa, India etc., but why didn't we see it accelerate in the 90s?

Your personal choices are fine.  When a bunch of like minded people en mass believe a fraud and have "corrective measures" legislated into place at best money is wasted (see: carbon credits, Solyndra, wind turbines) and at worst very, very bad things happen like fascism and famine.