Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

[MrMike]

Swell. Maybe its time for more governmental 'green energy' investment.

View attachment 67241779

Ouch...

But there's still money to be made! Algore say's Carbon offset Credits are cool! :mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]IEA: Global Coal Demand Bounced Back in 2017[/h]Guest climate wrecking by David Middleton It looks like my third-favorite fossil fuel continues to refuse to die… Business Coal Demand Bounced Back in 2017 After Two Years of Decline: IEA By Jeremy Hodges November 12, 2018, 6:00 PM CST India and Southeast Asia are driving demand for fossil fuels Investment in new coal power…

 

[Threegoofs]

Betcha there will be some people who think that was stupid but can't explain exactly why.

Because declaring marginal work a ‘new paradigm’ and ‘21st century science’ is absurdly idiotic when it’s highly doubtful that it is a significant contribution to science at all.

You can’t predict what science will overturn paradigms before they happen.. that’s the concept of disruption.

Your turn.

 

[Jack Hays]

Because declaring marginal work a ‘new paradigm’ and ‘21st century science’ is absurdly idiotic when it’s highly doubtful that it is a significant contribution to science at all.

You can’t predict what science will overturn paradigms before they happen.. that’s the concept of disruption.

Your turn.

It's happening now.

 

[bubbabgone]

Because declaring marginal work a ‘new paradigm’ and ‘21st century science’ is absurdly idiotic when it’s highly doubtful that it is a significant contribution to science at all.

You can’t predict what science will overturn paradigms before they happen.. that’s the concept of disruption.

Your turn.

Explain why "the interaction of solar output with galactic cosmic rays (GCR's), sometimes called the cosmic ray flux." is stupid.

Quick ... look up what it is. You have 2 minutes.

 

[Threegoofs]

Explain why "the interaction of solar output with galactic cosmic rays (GCR's), sometimes called the cosmic ray flux." is stupid.

Quick ... look up what it is. You have 2 minutes.

So you dont understand the post. Got it.

I never said that was stupid... what is stupid is claiming that its some sort of ‘paradigm shift’ before a paradigm changes. Especially because its pretty much a discredited mechanism for significant climate effect anyway.

But thats pretty complex to understand. Stick with graphic arts.

 

[bubbabgone]

So you dont understand the post. Got it.

I never said that was stupid... what is stupid is claiming that its some sort of ‘paradigm shift’ before a paradigm changes. Especially because its pretty much a discredited mechanism for significant climate effect anyway.

But thats pretty complex to understand. Stick with graphic arts.

Well just what is that "mechanism for significant climate effect" and who discredited it?

 

[Cassandra]

I am sort of a scientist, I have been in advanced research and development for almost 40 years, with a decade
running the science and engineering labs at a university.
What I suspect you are missing is that AGW is not a black and white issue, scientist are not divided into skeptical and non skeptical herds.
When you look at the consensus studies, the consensus, is mostly that, "Yes, it has warmed over the last century!", and
"Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas", beyond that, the numbers in agreement drop off quickly.
Any university researcher, will be on the lookout for possible grants, that could help them doing whatever research they are really interested in.
If the RFP (Request for Proposal) says to evaluate biological impacts of 3 C of global warming, they will do their best to evaluate the impacts IF
global temperature were to increase by 3 C. Now this says nothing about weather the 3C increase is a reality or not.
Nor is the Biologist going to write a paper saying the research is unnecessary, because the 3C is not possible.

P.S. All real scientist should be skeptical, it is an absolute prerequisite for science.

We will migrate off of fossil fuels, naturally, (Market Forces), when a suitable replacement can do the same function for less money.
I think this will be in the next decade or so, when solar power surpluses, will be stored as transport fuels.
The man made fuels are carbon neutral, as all that carbon will likely come from the ocean or the atmosphere.
The reality is that Humanity has an energy problem, not a CO2 problem, and we cannot fix the real problem while focusing
on the wrong problem.

Thanks for that thoughtful response. No it is not a black and white issue and I realize that our climate is extremely complex and its hard to make iron clad predictions.. but I observe my nephew taking water samples in the Atlantic and Pacific along w his colleagues at Woods Hole and his finding about the changes in ocean chemistry do not lie and those results are replicated by researchers elsewhere.

Furthermore, no one disputes that coal fired plants (and extractive industries) have contributed to fouling our air, water and our bodies so , yeh, I should think that people would welcome a cleaner energy future. I see no reason for it to be a partisan issue! It is odd that this is a partisan issue, don't you think?. I acknowledge that there are a great number of powerful stakeholders who are threatened by these changes- beside U.S. oil and coal industries, there are entire nations which rely on oil revenue - but why are individuals opposed to a healthier planet? I don't understand that.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well just what is that "mechanism for significant climate effect" and who discredited it?

Maybe you could read some posts around here.

I’m not going to bother to educate you, only to have you dismiss it. It’s like explaining evolution to a creationist. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

IOW.....Frankly, you’re not worth the effort.

 

[bubbabgone]

Maybe you could read some posts around here.

I’m not going to bother to educate you, only to have you dismiss it. It’s like explaining evolution to a creationist. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

IOW.....Frankly, you’re not worth the effort.

This is great. You never disappoint. You still only post what you think an alarmist would say. And then you run off like Quaestro and Visbek when called on it.

 

[longview]

Thanks for that thoughtful response. No it is not a black and white issue and I realize that our climate is extremely complex and its hard to make iron clad predictions.. but I observe my nephew taking water samples in the Atlantic and Pacific along w his colleagues at Woods Hole and his finding about the changes in ocean chemistry do not lie and those results are replicated by researchers elsewhere.

Furthermore, no one disputes that coal fired plants (and extractive industries) have contributed to fouling our air, water and our bodies so , yeh, I should think that people would welcome a cleaner energy future. I see no reason for it to be a partisan issue! It is odd that this is a partisan issue, don't you think?. I acknowledge that there are a great number of powerful stakeholders who are threatened by these changes- beside U.S. oil and coal industries, there are entire nations which rely on oil revenue - but why are individuals opposed to a healthier planet? I don't understand that.

No one wants dirty air or water, but people do like their first world lifestyles, mostly simple things
like reliable electricity, hot running water, easy transportation, ect. The second and third world would like these things also.
The balance is how to provide these things outside how it is currently supplied.
Solar is great, but has real duty cycle issues, Wind helps level that out some, but is unreliable also.
Fission Nuclear is the clear choice, but many environmentalist refuse to even consider the option.
Solar can provide the amount of energy for the entire planet to live a 1st world lifestyle, but only with massive energy storage.
I am not talking batteries, but something else, for solar to work effectively, it needs backup, and something more reliable than wind power.

As to you final statement, there are few individuals who are opposed to a healthier planet, but the AGW movement
has associated anyone questioning the science with wanting an unhealthy planet.
Science is supposed to be skeptical, suppressing questioning of science, is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I for one oppose AGW, mostly because it is weak science, and possesses the capability of causing damage to
all of science by promoting such a weak concept as validated science.
The observations do not support the mid to high end of the predictions, which is the basis of the alarmist claims.
The reality is that most of the predicted effects of CO2 have never been measured or observed.
This is not saying that increasing CO2 levels do not have other know effects, like ocean chemistry, or more plant greening,
but the actual forcing that causes the warming and the predicted feedback warming.
If CO2 is an issue, addressing our energy problem will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
We simply do not have enough hydrocarbons in the ground to allow the entire population to attain a 1st world lifestyle.
As long as that is not an option, we will have conflict.

 

[bubbabgone]

No one wants dirty air or water, but people do like their first world lifestyles, mostly simple things
like reliable electricity, hot running water, easy transportation, ect. The second and third world would like these things also.
The balance is how to provide these things outside how it is currently supplied.
Solar is great, but has real duty cycle issues, Wind helps level that out some, but is unreliable also.
Fission Nuclear is the clear choice, but many environmentalist refuse to even consider the option.
Solar can provide the amount of energy for the entire planet to live a 1st world lifestyle, but only with massive energy storage.
I am not talking batteries, but something else, for solar to work effectively, it needs backup, and something more reliable than wind power.

As to you final statement, there are few individuals who are opposed to a healthier planet, but the AGW movement
has associated anyone questioning the science with wanting an unhealthy planet.
Science is supposed to be skeptical, suppressing questioning of science, is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I for one oppose AGW, mostly because it is weak science, and possesses the capability of causing damage to
all of science by promoting such a weak concept as validated science.
The observations do not support the mid to high end of the predictions, which is the basis of the alarmist claims.
The reality is that most of the predicted effects of CO2 have never been measured or observed.
This is not saying that increasing CO2 levels do not have other know effects, like ocean chemistry, or more plant greening,
but the actual forcing that causes the warming and the predicted feedback warming.
If CO2 is an issue, addressing our energy problem will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
We simply do not have enough hydrocarbons in the ground to allow the entire population to attain a 1st world lifestyle.
As long as that is not an option, we will have conflict.

"This is not saying that increasing CO2 levels do not have other know effects, like ocean chemistry, or more plant greening,
but the actual forcing that causes the warming and the predicted feedback warming." ........ is what ....... thus far not reliably measurable and unconfirmed as to extent?

 

[gfm7175]

there are few individuals who are opposed to a healthier planet, but the AGW movement
has associated anyone questioning the science with wanting an unhealthy planet.

Absolutely correct, and that is a Strawman Argument on their part. It is logically fallacious reasoning, which you will see that AGW people in general are full of...

Science is supposed to be skeptical, suppressing questioning of science, is the antithesis of the scientific method.

True. Science is skeptical because science only makes use of conflicting evidence. It does not concern itself with supporting evidence or consensus. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Global Warming is not science, but rather a religion based on a void argument.

I for one oppose AGW, mostly because it is weak science, and possesses the capability of causing damage to
all of science by promoting such a weak concept as validated science.

I'd go further than weak science, as I did above. I'd say that it isn't even science at all. It is a religion based on a void argument. The argument is void because the term 'global warming' itself cannot be defined in a non-circular way.

Global Warming denies Science. It denies the Laws of Thermodynamics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

 

[longview]

"This is not saying that increasing CO2 levels do not have other know effects, like ocean chemistry, or more plant greening,
but the actual forcing that causes the warming and the predicted feedback warming." ........ is what ....... thus far not reliably measurable and unconfirmed as to extent?

Right, we have a set of predictions, without any measurements showing those predictions to be accurate.

 

[Threegoofs]

This is great. You never disappoint. You still only post what you think an alarmist would say. And then you run off like Quaestro and Visbek when called on it.

Look man. .. if you don’t understand it, don’t whine when we don’t bother to spoon feed you the info, knowing you’ll just dismiss it because it’s not denier-approved.

 

[Threegoofs]

Right, we have a set of predictions, without any measurements showing those predictions to be accurate.

Measurements;

Pretty accurate predictions:

FYI- this is why the scientific world generally accepts the findings of the IPCC.

 

[Jack Hays]

Measurements;


FYI- this is why the scientific world generally accepts the findings of the IPCC.

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

 

[Threegoofs]

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

Nice blog.

Can I interest you in creationist blogs? Anti-vaccine blogs? How about ways to cure cancer by prayer? Or Laetrile? Or crystals?

 

[longview]

Measurements;

Pretty accurate predictions:

FYI- this is why the scientific world generally accepts the findings of the IPCC.

Except that the temperature increasing is not a measurement of the change in energy imbalance.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nice blog.

Can I interest you in creationist blogs? Anti-vaccine blogs? How about ways to cure cancer by prayer? Or Laetrile? Or crystals?

How was the crow?

 

[bubbabgone]

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

I hope you're not expecting any response on point.

 

[Cassandra]

No one wants dirty air or water, but people do like their first world lifestyles, mostly simple things
like reliable electricity, hot running water, easy transportation, ect. The second and third world would like these things also.
The balance is how to provide these things outside how it is currently supplied.
Solar is great, but has real duty cycle issues, Wind helps level that out some, but is unreliable also.
Fission Nuclear is the clear choice, but many environmentalist refuse to even consider the option.

But many environmentalists are in favor of the new generation of nuclear technology such as this:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...lt-nuclear-includes-bill-gates-and-china.html

Unfortunately most people are unaware of it.

As to you final statement, there are few individuals who are opposed to a healthier planet, but the AGW movement
has associated anyone questioning the science with wanting an unhealthy planet.

Yes, I certainly have the impression that Conservatives put corporate profits ahead of clean air and water... One only has to read this thread to see how many of the conservatives are opposed to any kind of change. We have a POTUS who is putting his thumb on the scale for oil and coal. Show me the conservatives who are vocally shocked and dismayed by this.

Science is supposed to be skeptical, suppressing questioning of science, is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I for one oppose AGW, mostly because it is weak science, and possesses the capability of causing damage to
all of science by promoting such a weak concept as validated science.

There is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing in ways that will be harmful to life on this planet. I assume that the aspect that you find "weak" is the anthropogenic part. I think that has been thoroughly discussed on this thread, already. Even for those of us who accept the conclusions of the recent climate report, the distance between individual behavior and the fate of the planet makes us feel impotent to do anything about it. Just as gov't facilitated the dominance of personal transportation( the auto), it facilitates gas lines and off shore drilling.. so too should gov't facilitate the infrastructure needed for elec. cars powered by molten salt nuclear reactors, solar and wind- because it is the smart thing to do for many reasons beyond possible catastrophic climate change.

The observations do not support the mid to high end of the predictions, which is the basis of the alarmist claims.

Honestly, I hope you are right, but the numerous scientists that I am acquainted with think you are hopelessly sanguine about the future of this planet.

If CO2 is an issue, addressing our energy problem will solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.
We simply do not have enough hydrocarbons in the ground to allow the entire population to attain a 1st world lifestyle.
As long as that is not an option, we will have conflict.

That is true.. which is why the Indians and Chinese are investing in nuclear technology.
In 1928, Gandhi wrote, "If an entire nation of 300 million (India's population at the time) took to similar economic exploitation (referring to the West's industrial progress), it would strip the world bare like locusts."

 

[longview]

But many environmentalists are in favor of the new generation of nuclear technology such as this:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...lt-nuclear-includes-bill-gates-and-china.html

Unfortunately most people are unaware of it.




Yes, I certainly have the impression that Conservatives put corporate profits ahead of clean air and water... One only has to read this thread to see how many of the conservatives are opposed to any kind of change. We have a POTUS who is putting his thumb on the scale for oil and coal. Show me the conservatives who are vocally shocked and dismayed by this.


There is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing in ways that will be harmful to life on this planet. I assume that the aspect that you find "weak" is the anthropogenic part. I think that has been thoroughly discussed on this thread, already. Even for those of us who accept the conclusions of the recent climate report, the distance between individual behavior and the fate of the planet makes us feel impotent to do anything about it. Just as gov't facilitated the dominance of personal transportation( the auto), it facilitates gas lines and off shore drilling.. so too should gov't facilitate the infrastructure needed for elec. cars powered by molten salt nuclear reactors, solar and wind- because it is the smart thing to do for many reasons beyond possible catastrophic climate change.



Honestly, I hope you are right, but the numerous scientists that I am acquainted with think you are hopelessly sanguine about the future of this planet.


That is true.. which is why the Indians and Chinese are investing in nuclear technology.
In 1928, Gandhi wrote, "If an entire nation of 300 million (India's population at the time) took to similar economic exploitation (referring to the West's industrial progress), it would strip the world bare like locusts."

I am not really concerned about Trump promoting coal, as coal has it's own very real limitations,
I would favor some type of small nuclear power, providing steam for existing coal plants.

There is evidence that the climate is changing, cause attribution, and the change being beneficial or harmful is not so much in evidence.
I think the existing forcing number for CO2 is likely accurate, but think the predicted feedbacks are minimal at best, and perhaps negative.
The recent climate report is full of inconsistencies and is simply alarmist tripe for the most part.
The thing the government can do is address the problems that are resisting solar power from expanding,
that is to unify the home solar grid connection rules to something that both utilities and homeowners can live with.
Current net metering rules are toxic to utilities.
I think lots of solar will be good for the nation, beyond that, I think the Government should not be selecting the technology,
as they have a history of bad choices. The Market should decide the best solution, let people vote with their wallets.

It is not just me who thinks that the ECS from 2XCO2 will be at the low end of the IPCC's very broad range.
The lead authors from IPCC AR5 published an article with their findings when the IPCC did not include them in the report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C

Of course Lewis Curry found an ECS of 1.6 C, and Lindzen found an ECS of below 1C, and all of these assume we will actually be able to double the CO2 level.
I think, we have worked really hard to find enough oil and coal over the last 150 years to raise CO2 levels by 128 ppm,
The remaining 152 ppm will not be an easy task. I think oil and maybe coal will price themselves out of the market long before the doubling.

This focus on CO2 as an issue if wasting time and money from our addressing the real problem.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The energy sector have never been a free market. For example that global subsidies to fossil fuel are hundreds of billions each year. Much more than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

Western governments have also been heavily involved in the Middle East for many decades to protect the flow of cheap oil, with for example support of brutal dictators and costly wars. The development of nuclear power was also dependent on massive support from the government.

Governments support of renewable energy have also been very successful because it have lead to economies of scale and technology development so that you have seen a drastic reduction in cost of renewable energy. So that dirty fossil fuel are now starting to be outcompeted by renewable energy.

“Coal has been getting the squeeze for years now, but the plunging cost of renewable energy is already starting to give natural gas a run for its money. The implications for the incumbent fossil fuel industry are dire.

“Coal and gas are facing a mounting threat to their position in the world’s electricity generation mix, as a result of the spectacular reductions in cost not just for wind and solar technologies, but also for batteries,” according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Measurements;

Pretty accurate predictions:

FYI- this is why the scientific world generally accepts the findings of the IPCC.

Also that the fossil fuel companies, that are amongst the wealthiest companies in the world, haven't been able to disprove AGW. Just like federal agencies under Trump and Bush haven't been able to disprove the urgent need for action to combat climate change.

Instead both fossil fuel companies and federal agencies under Trump have acknowledge the need for action on manmade global warming.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf (Page 16 and forward.)

A big reason for that you still have a debate about climate changes is because the fossil fuel companies’ massive disinformation campaigns during the last decades.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes

While in US also that Republican politicians have failed to listen to the scientists so climate change have turned into a partisan issue.