No announcement yet.

More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    ..... snip all the science fiction/godzilla horror movie stuff...
    I think we are more doomed if we have a global cooling event than the other way around.
    and the problem IS NOT 'climate change', as we've been living/prospering with
    'changing climate' since the end of the last ice age.


    and this is DOCUMENTED and no longer subject to debate:

    The Chemistry

    When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

    The Biological Impacts

    Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans.

    but yet... the luddite brigade continues to ignore - never mind shout-down - ANY discussion of our 'energy ace in the hole'

    as IF by some magikal mirakle their 'alternative' schemes will get us any more than a small fraction - measured in SINGLE DIGITS - of the energy we already require just to maintain standards of living - never mind the INCREASE in energy demand that will be required to provide clean drinking water, increased food supplies to feed - never mind INCREASE LIVING STANDARDS of the 3rd world

    never mind the energy required to keep whole food$ market, et al - stocked full of all sorts of 'all organic/all-natural/non-GMO' and dont fergit 'FRESH AIR-FLOWN' everything that isnt IN-season in all the coastal - read: non-food-producing - metro areas during the winter months

    why its HILARIOUS that this same crowd - and their pals in the 'alternative' media - is so VEHEMENTLY/RABIDLY/FOAMING-at-the-mouth anti-nuke power
    Last edited by lektrode; 04-21-14, 12:17 PM.


    • #32
      Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

      Originally posted by aaron View Post
      It is an interesting idea. AFAIK, it does not take too much fission (bad radiation) to get a hydrogen bomb (relatively little radiation versus power) chain reaction going. We could probably set off a lot of them; or, judiciously place them near volcanoes ready to blow. It could probably work. And, perhaps it puts off bad stuff for 1000 years. Hydrocarbons continue to get more expensive, our populations continually shrink, and in 1000 years, we are 1/2 billion highly efficient humans living in different places on the planet, using very little resources per capita. I imagine we will have the ability to clone any animal or insect that exists today. We will create sanctuaries and create micro environments. Species will thrive much like national parks and wildlife preserves of today.

      Eventually, the recent equation of (more oil = more food = more people) will come to an end. If it happens slowly over 1000 years, I think humanity AND the planet will come out just fine.

      Perhaps we just need to get that global heat wave for 5 or 10 years and then we decide it is worth exploring some other options. For now, however, I think we can keep that nuclear ace in the hole. We can create a mini global winter at any time. Good news.

      I wonder what if they were right back in the 70's and another ice age is coming. Do we have any good ways of 'heating' the planet? It seems we have a good way of cooling it, but what can we do if we do get a freezing winter that does not stop for a decade? I guess we could paint the North and South pole black. Or, blow up frozen methane deposits so that they are released into the atmosphere? Governments already encourage us to burn a lot of fossil fuels; it will not help much to increase consumption at such a high cost.

      I think we are more doomed if we have a global cooling event than the other way around.
      The cooling event is coming. When we stop heating the earth add 1000 years and the postponed ice age will begin. I don't share your happy survival ideas.


      • #33
        Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

        Now we're into witch hunts:


        • #34
          Co2 emission caused by Temp, not vice versa

          The meat is around 15 min in.

          The net emission of C02 fluctuates widely. The human emission is very consistent year to year.

          The net co2 variation correlates with global temperatures--a hot year means lots of c02 is emitted.

          So it's temperature causing C02 concentration to increase, not the other way around.


          • #35
            Re: Co2 emission caused by Temp, not vice versa

            Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the scientist at the heart of the "Climate McCarthyism" row - has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons.

            The paper, which Prof Bengtsson wrote with four co-authors, suggested that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than is admitted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty". However, when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, the paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected.
            One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:
            ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
            This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."
            He added:
            ‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’
            In truth, to anyone familiar with the Climategate emails there will be nothing surprising or unusual in this incident or this claim. As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science.
            What's more significant is that this story has made it to the front page of the Times. Like most of the mainstream media, the Times has been remarkably slow to latch onto the corruption, malfeasance, waste, dishonesty, bullying and lies which are rife throughout the climate change industry. If it hadn't been for the internet and sites like Watts Up With That? and blogposts like this one the Climategate scandal would have passed almost without notice.
            Finally, it seems, the MSM is beginning to wake up to something it really ought to have picked up on long ago: the greatest and most expensive scientific scandal in history, in which a cabal of lavishly grant-funded, activist-scientists from Britain to Australia, Germany to the US, has exaggerated the evidence for "man-made global warming" and attempted ruthlessly to suppress the work of sceptical scientists who dispute the "consensus."
            Professor Bengtsson's McCarthyite purging may one day come to be seen as the climate alarmists' "Bridge Too Far" moment. As Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has argued, "It has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails."
            The reason, quite simply, is that it shows the climate change establishment in such an appalling light. These people have long traded on the public's acceptance that they are the "experts", the guys we can trust. Yet here they are shown behaving not like loftily-minded seekers-after-truth but simple playground bullies. One German physicist is said hysterically to have compared Bengtsson's decision to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a politically neutral think tank) to joining the Ku Klux Klan. Another warmist scientist - an American one this time - petulantly refused to be named as co-author on any of Bengtsson's papers, a form of professional assassination.
            This does all rather invite the question: if the climate establishment is really so sure of the solidity of the science underpinning its doomsday predictions, how come it needs to adopt such desperate, unethical and unscientific methods to shut out dissenting voices?

            The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."
            John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.
            But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.
            Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.
            Their ability to do so for much longer, however, looks increasingly doubtful. The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.



            • #36
              Re: Co2 emission caused by Temp, not vice versa



              • #37
                Re: Co2 emission caused by Temp, not vice versa

                The WS article seems to be fairly well reasoned. MY favorite part is this:

                The IPCC modeling chapter, which virtually no reporter reads, is also candid in admitting that most of the models have overpredicted recent warming. The 17-years-and-counting plateau in global average temperature, following two decades of a nearly 0.4 degree increase in temperature that boosted the warming narrative for a time, is the biggest embarrassment for a supposed scientific “consensus” since Piltdown Man. The basic theory says we’re supposed to continue warming at about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but since the late 1990s we’ve stopped. In one of the infamous emails revealed in the East Anglia “climategate” scandal of 2009, Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist, called it a “travesty” that scientists couldn’t give a good reason for the pause. They’ve been scrambling ever since, offering a variety of explanations, but none of them can minimize the fact that nearly all of the models failed to predict a “pause” of this length, and if the “pause” continues for another 5 to 10 years, all of the models will be falsified.
                A scientific theory has to accurately predict reality. That is the Minimum requirement for credibility, since alternative explanations must also be ruled out. The models are not working.


                • #38
                  Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                  It is turning out to be the LIE of global warming:



                  • #39
                    Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                    Here's the question of the day: Is there a climate bubble?

                    In a New York Times op-ed, former treasury secretary Hank Paulson says there is. He calls it The Coming Climate Crash.

                    For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nation’s financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.

                    We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.

                    This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.

                    We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.

                    The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax.

                    Fewer than 10 years ago, the best analysis projected that melting Arctic sea ice would mean nearly ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century. Now the ice is melting so rapidly that virtually ice-free Arctic summers could be here in the next decade or two. The lack of reflective ice will mean that more of the sun’s heat will be absorbed by the oceans, accelerating warming of both the oceans and the atmosphere, and ultimately raising sea levels.

                    Even worse, in May, two separate studies discovered that one of the biggest thresholds has already been reached. The West Antarctic ice sheet has begun to melt, a process that scientists estimate may take centuries but that could eventually raise sea levels by as much as 14 feet. Now that this process has begun, there is nothing we can do to undo the underlying dynamics, which scientists say are “baked in.”

                    Some members of my political party worry that pricing carbon is a “big government” intervention. In fact, it will reduce the role of government, which, on our present course, increasingly will be called on to help communities and regions affected by climate-related disasters like floods, drought-related crop failures and extreme weather like tornadoes, hurricanes and other violent storms.

                    Ironies Abound

                    Pauslon argues along the lines of "to reduce big government, we need more of it". This is of course similar to the Vietnam war analogy "we must destroy the village to save it", or George Bush's famous solution: “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”.

                    Curiously, Paulson believes there is nothing we can do to undo the underlying dynamics, which scientists say are “baked in.”.

                    If indeed global warming is baked in, why spend billions of dollars in a foolish attempt to prevent the inevitable? Wouldn't it be better to spend billions of dollars on something else?

                    Apparently not.

                    Let's now answer the original question: Is there a climate bubble?

                    Yes, Virginia, of course there is.

                    When people think man can stop climate change patterns that last tens of millions of years, when people think a map of the last 100 or even 1000 years of climate change predicts the futures, and when Republicans tout big government to stop big government even though the results are "baked in", the appropriate words to describe the setup are indeed "climate bubble".

                    Mike "Mish" Shedlock