Global warming... real or make believe? - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14969457
redcarpet wrote:Why are the ice caps melting, dear deniers? And WHY is the temperature of the world at it's highest since records began? WHY are sea levels rising?

Ice caps contract in the summer and expand in the winder. Temperature is not the highest since records began. We've actually seen cooling over the last few years.

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
Global temperatures have dropped since 2016. Here’s why that’s normal.

Sea level is rising about an 1/8th of an inch a year. Not a big deal. Bruges, Belgium used to be a sea port when sea levels were higher.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Models are not instruments and cannot be tested for accuracy and reliability in the same way as instruments have.

Models can make a forecast--as the IPCC models have--and the results can be tested against actual results. IPCC models do not walk forward well. They consistently dramatically over-estimate warming and do not account for cooling trends. We saw temperatures peak in 1998, and we've seen cooling over the last few years.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. I have already addressed your idea that the models have not been around long enough to be verified as reliable and accurate.

That is why we should not rush to overthrow economic progress just to satisfy a bunch of bed wetters freaking out about an imagined climate apocalypse.

Sivad wrote:I'd be willing to consider carbon taxes if the assholes pushing them put their money where their mouth is. Let's start with a 1000% tax on all conspicuous consumption. You want to buy a private jet or yacht, 1000% tax. You want to have a a 5,000 square foot second home, 1000% tax. You want to own a high end sports car, 1000% tax. When these fuckers are gonna feel the pinch as much as the working class then I'll be willing to consider their carbon taxes, until then, they can get fucked.

Some yachts are sail powered, and diesel engines are generally pretty efficient. Jets are incredibly inefficient unless you pack them full of people and price fuel per mile per person. Private jets are incredibly inefficient. I have a 3150 sq. ft. house, and I already have 30 solar panels. I'm up or down $100 at the end of a year, and my overage usually covers most of my gas bill too. That's why you have to be careful about "tax the rich," as those taxes almost always fall on the working and middle classes. Tax credits for solar panels are a scam for the rich. I do it because I know it's a scam and I don't have to pay much cap-and-trade if I go solar. Besides, I like to keep my house at 74 in the summer time.

Sivad wrote:If any of these jokers were serious about climate change they'd be talking about taxing the profits of the carbon economy and not vital necessities like fuel.

If they were serious, they would be applauding Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. China is the world's biggest polluter by far. When you see the inconsistencies in arguments, it becomes pretty clear that there is a lot more going on here than concern for the environment.

Drlee wrote:And in the end, it is the working class which is going to get fucked either way.

That is the truth. They are also starting to get the picture.

Drlee wrote:I see that you are finally admitting that you favor a carbon tax which would indicate to the casual observer that you believe the climate models and warnings may be true.

I think they are complete horseshit. Yet, I am probably the "greenest" person on PoFo because I can do math (incidentally why I'm skeptical of the models too). 27 cents a kilowatt hour for tier 1. Get into the higher tiers, as I do, they charge you $0.44 cents a kilowatt hour. Fuck that! Even Hawaii is cheaper than that.

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/ ... DS_E-1.pdf

Cap-and-trade is a scam folks. It's just a scheme to turn bulk pricing on its head.
#14969460
blackjack21 wrote:Models can make a forecast--as the IPCC models have--and the results can be tested against actual results. IPCC models do not walk forward well. They consistently dramatically over-estimate warming and do not account for cooling trends. We saw temperatures peak in 1998, and we've seen cooling over the last few years.


They get some things right and other things wrong, a lot of it comes down to which method of statistical analysis is applied and there are a number of methods that are equally valid(at least from the perspective of someone who isn't an expert statistician anyway). It's ambiguous at best, there's nothing solid or reliable coming out of the models.

They don't match observation very well(they project far more heat than has been observed), they're constructed on a host of assumptions, they're heavily parameterized, and while less buggy(defect density) than most commercial software, their millions of lines of code still contain plenty of errors.


That is why we should not rush to overthrow economic progress just to satisfy a bunch of bed wetters freaking out about an imagined climate apocalypse.


Yeah, this is just another fit of Malthusian hysteria, rich developed societies hit peak hysteria every half century or so. It's the same kind of apocalyptic hysteria that would sweep pre-industrial societies at regular intervals. It's mostly idiocy but at the core of it there is something of a legitimate concern.

Cap-and-trade is a scam folks. It's just a scheme to turn bulk pricing on its head.


Carbon pricing is definitely a scam.
#14969467
Drlee and PoD are typical CAGW believers, they don't know shit about the science, they don't don't know shit about the integrity or structure of the discipline, they don't know shit about shit because they're not thinkers. They just believe in babbittry as an article of faith. If this was the 1930s they'd be eugenics supporters, if it was the 1610s they'd be geocentrists, their kind always just believes whatever the fuck is handed down from on high. They're not what Hannah Arendt called wirkliche menschen(real people), they don't have any capacity or desire for independent thought. Unfortunately their kind is indestructible, they're never going away, we just have to accept the fact that we're locked in a perpetual struggle with this babbitt mentality until the species evolves.
#14969476
here's what one of the top oceanographers has to say about sea level rise:

"at best, the determination and attribution of global-mean sea level change lies at the very edge of knowledge and technology ... it remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming -- as disappointing as this conclusion may be." Wunsch concludes that the altimetry is "currently untestable against in situ datasets."

Wunsch, C., Ponte, R.M. and Heimbach, P. 2007. Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993-2004. Journal of Climate 20: 5889-5911.
#14969529
@Sivad

You insult people a lot.

Also, your posts have little to no argument in them.

Insulting other people is not an argumnent.

Now, according to your own logic, the models have not been around long enough to be judged unreliable or inaccurate. So, your own argument contradicts your claim. Based on your own arguments, I am going to dismiss your claim as unsupported.

You seem to now be arguing that sea level is not rising.

How would you then explain the problems facing the i-Kiribati?
#14969552
Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, according to your own logic, the models have not been around long enough to be judged unreliable or inaccurate. So, your own argument contradicts your claim. Based on your own arguments, I am going to dismiss your claim as unsupported.

They have been around long enough to make predictions, and to see what actually transpired. Consequently, they can be deemed inaccurate over those time periods, and the inaccuracy classified as overestimating warming. This has been pretty consistent since the early 1990s.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How would you then explain the problems facing the i-Kiribati?

Atolls--volcanic seamount islands--frequently sink into the ocean in geologic time. In the Hawaiian island chain, the Southern most major Hawaiian island, Hawaii, is still growing--given its rise from the sea floor, it is considered the largest volcano on Earth. The Hawaiian island's Northern most major island, Midway, is nothing more than an atoll. It's a natural phenomenon. For all intents and purposes, atolls are islands that have already fallen below sea level, but have coral reefs on top of them that have caught enough Earth--usually silt and sand--through currents, winds, etc. to peek a bit above the mean sea level. It doesn't matter if sea level rises or not. Kiribati will eventually sink beneath the surface of the ocean naturally. Consider it a fait accompli, unless we get the Dutch involved.
#14969575
Here's what sivad's top oceanographer has to say about global warming:

WUNSCH: An impressionistic view is that a wider public now has a greater appreciation that climate change is a very dangerous process for both humans and all flora and fauna. The spectacle of the Republican presidential speeches and debates, the continued dominance of people like Senator [James] Inhofe (R-OK), and foolish forums such as the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, remain dispiriting. I have long thought that the much younger, emerging generations were the best hope for the future. The intense debates in universities over divesting institutional endowment investments in fossil fuel—whatever the merits of that actual course of action—are one of the most encouraging signs of the emerging movement.

Perhaps, like parts of science, sensible social progress emerges “one funeral at a time” (paraphrasing Max Planck).

PT: What is your reaction to the goals that were developed at the recent climate change conference in Paris, particularly in relation to the role of observational oceanography?

WUNSCH: Paris seems to represent real progress, at least in the moral sense, and we can all hope that countries will live up to their commitments with concrete actions to follow. Real efforts to begin dealing with climate change are urgent and Paris is, perhaps, a breakthrough. A worry is that in the push towards emission limitations, technological advancement in energy, and carbon extraction methods et cetera, that the still primitive nature of much of the science of climate will be lost sight of.

The science, particularly the observational part, is extremely cheap compared to efforts involving shifts in the energy economy. And with all of the reasons to focus on the technical aspects of renewable resources, extracting carbon dioxide et cetera, a great deal of fundamental climate science still remains to be confronted. Much of it isn't sexy. It involves difficult long-duration measurements and new models that take years to construct and understand, and it’s in danger in many places of being regarded as not very relevant.

Furthermore, the unwillingness of the world to confront the zero-order issue of human population growth as an underlying driver of global change generally is discouraging. Population modelers keep increasing their estimate of the maximum expected population of the world in the decades to come. Adding billions more people can lead to the failure of even the most effective technologies.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/1 ... 3032/full/
#14969577
It's real, but it's very much out of our control and we have much less to do with it than originally thought. Sun is at an all time activity high, and will see a drop of up to 60% in flare/geomagnetic activity over the next 20 years, resulting in a 1.3-1.5% decrease in total radiation output. This will actually lead to a slight drop in temperatures on earth, but not by much.

We are at the mercy of our Sun and potential large scale wildfires/super-volcanic events. The effects of our artificial greenhouse gas emissions are puny by comparison.
#14969586
Igor Antunov wrote:It's real, but it's very much out of our control and we have much less to do with it than originally thought. Sun is at an all time activity high, and will see a drop of up to 60% in flare/geomagnetic activity over the next 20 years, resulting in a 1.3-1.5% decrease in total radiation output. This will actually lead to a slight drop in temperatures on earth, but not by much.

We are at the mercy of our Sun and potential large scale wildfires/super-volcanic events. The effects of our artificial greenhouse gas emissions are puny by comparison.


Please provide evidence for these claims. Thanks.
#14969587
Actually we are just about at solar minimum not maximum. This does have a mostly insignificant cooling effect.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us-but-would-not-hold-off-climate-change


Partisan but not incorrect source.
#14969633
My carbon offset last month is 804 lbs for November. I've saved 9 trees with my solar panels last month--generating 528 kWh. That's nothing compared to October, when I generated 895 kWh. So far this year, I've generated 11.3 MWh. I just feel so good saving the environment! What are your carbon offsets folks? How much CO2 have you saved with your solar panels? Are you a responsible steward of the environment like I am? :excited:
#14969644
blackjack21 wrote:My carbon offset last month is 804 lbs for November. I've saved 9 trees with my solar panels last month--generating 528 kWh. That's nothing compared to October, when I generated 895 kWh. So far this year, I've generated 11.3 MWh. I just feel so good saving the environment! What are your carbon offsets folks? How much CO2 have you saved with your solar panels? Are you a responsible steward of the environment like I am? :excited:

I am glad you like solar panels. However, at my age (74), I am not convinced they are worth my investment.
#14969652
blackjack21 wrote:My carbon offset last month is 804 lbs for November. I've saved 9 trees with my solar panels last month--generating 528 kWh. That's nothing compared to October, when I generated 895 kWh. So far this year, I've generated 11.3 MWh. I just feel so good saving the environment! What are your carbon offsets folks? How much CO2 have you saved with your solar panels? Are you a responsible steward of the environment like I am? :excited:


The energy payback time (EPBT) describes the time span a PV system needs to operate in order to generate the same amount of energy that was used for its manufacture and installation. This energy amortization, given in years, is also referred to as break-even energy payback time. The EPBT depends vastly on the location where the PV system is installed (e.g. the amount of sunlight available) and on the efficiency of the system, namely the type of PV technology and the system's components.

In life-cycle analysis (LCA) from the 1990s, the energy payback time had often been cited to be as high as 10 years.


I assume you're not using the latest and most expensive panels, just the stock kind. Those panels won't pay off environmentally for years. Chances are you've done more damage to the environment with those panels than you're going to save before they crap out from wear and tear. One hail storm is enough to damage them.

no, the answer is clearly nukular.

I'm devising my own radioactive energy source. Still need to steal some more materials from the local university.
#14969674
Hindsite wrote:I am glad you like solar panels. However, at my age (74), I am not convinced they are worth my investment.

It depends on where you live, what your utility charges for power, how much you use and if you have cap-and-trade carbon taxes AND of course tax credits.

I work at home and live in a large house. It gets hot in the summer. It would run me $450 a month to run the air conditioner during the height of summer, with probably a few bills jumping passed that. Running all day at home, I always blow past the base tier into tier one, and usually into tier 2. Tier 3 is criminally expensive, but since the government sets pricing, you cannot prosecute them under RICO as the government and utilities ARE the organized crime syndicate.

Igor Antunov wrote:I assume you're not using the latest and most expensive panels, just the stock kind.

Mine are about three years old with Enphase micro-inverters. So they are reasonably new.

Igor Antunov wrote:Those panels won't pay off environmentally for years. Chances are you've done more damage to the environment with those panels than you're going to save before they crap out from wear and tear.

I know that perfectly well. I'm just trolling the imbeciles who believe otherwise. However, with a 6% note and tier 2 pricing, it does pencil out on a cash flow basis finance wise. However, as I said, I am in California. I don't worry to much about hail. Additionally, you get almost 1/3 back in the form of a net tax credit.

So if you are poor it probably doesn't help that much, because you can't afford them, you don't pay taxes anyway, and the utilities will subsidize your bill. For me, it was a $10k+ tax credit, halving my monthly electricity bill and subsidizing my gas bill with the overage. I do pay about $100 or so a year. Worked out very nicely.

If you are in some place that sells you electricity for $0.17 a kilowatt hour, don't have cap-and-trade, you don't work at home, and don't make much money, don't bother. For me, it's just a way to end run these fuckers. I would have got an electric car too, but crude oil prices collapsed. Gasoline really needs to be about $4.50-$5 a gallon for that to pencil out. Since I work at home, I only drive about 10k miles a year. It doesn't make sense financially for me.

However, in California we have some of the highest gas taxes in the country. Basically, in blue states, Democrat voters tend to vote their feelings and have a need to belong to a group. So this propaganda works on them. For whatever reason, they are their own worst enemies, but they strangely blame Republicans for all their problems, most of which are of their own creation.
#14969676
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Here's what sivad's top oceanographer has to say about global warming:

[in] science progress emerges one funeral at a time.



It's good of Wunsch to acknowledge just how dysfunctional the institution of science has become. The pious liberal will gloss right over that line because the reality it's referring to is so at odds with the liberal weltanschaung that the liberal mind just can't process it.

Einstein said "whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." We all have some ideological blindness but the hyper-partisan ultra orthodox liberal class has really disappeared up its own ass with the science worship.
#14969677
Igor Antunov wrote:We are coming off a record solar maximum, and the minimum will plunge dramatically over the coming decades lowering global temps.


Please provide evidence for these claims. Thanks.

No. You do it.

The recent record solar maximum was back in the late 1950s: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif

Unless you meant "of the 11 year solar maxima, the latest was the lowest we've had for over 100 years" ... (Irradiance is higher at sunspot maxima: https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/Earth8.pdf )

Igor, you wrote some bullshit, and then when asked for evidence, you tell other people to provide it. This is not how real life works, mate. I worry that you're going to have to look after yourself one day, and you won't be ready.

[I've found out the forum software changes "pal" to "Palestinian", regardless of the case of the first letter. :roll: ]
#14969683
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The recent record solar maximum was back in the late 1950s: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif


The question is how much confidence should we place in the measurements of solar activity?

Crucial to the understanding of possible solar impact on terrestrial climate is accurate measurement of solar forcing. Accurate measurement only became available during the satellite era, and even that is open to dispute: different measurements find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[34] Scafetta and Willson argue for significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000.[35] But Lockwood and Frohlich[36] find that solar forcing declined after 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_act ... rradiation



Solar UV-fluctuations underestimated
With approximately 60 percent, the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun contributes more significantly to the total irradiance variations of our star than previously thought.

July 09, 2015
The fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance over the course of several years and decades are an important parameter in climate models. Researchers led by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Germany have now shown that so far in such models the influence of the of the ultraviolet (UV-) radiation has been underestimated. The UV radiation is considered the part of the solar radiation that is most relevant for climate studies. Instead of almost 30 percent, as previously thought, the UV radiation contributes around 60 percent to the overall variability of solar irradiance. Unlike other approaches, the MPS-researchers determine the solar irradiance on the basis of magnetic processes on the Sun itself: they evaluate the ever-changing number and brightness of bright and dark areas on the solar surface.


Indeed, it has been known for more than a hundred years, that the Sun is a variable star subject to an approximately eleven-year-cycle. However, direct measurements of solar irradiance have been possible only since the beginning of the space age. The decisive quantity is the radiation incident on the Earth's atmosphere. From there it can even influence processes on the surface. Since 1978, satellites provide such data. However, since each satellite is designed a little bit differently and the sensitivity of the instruments decreases with time, the data are sometimes difficult to compare.

https://www.mps.mpg.de/4017144/PM_2015_ ... erschaetzt
#14969693
Sivad wrote:The question is how much confidence should we place in the measurements of solar activity?

Igor made a wild claim with no evidence about the past of solar activity, which was the opposite of reality. That was after a wild prediction with no evidence about the future of solar activity, and a similarly wild and evidence-free claim on how it would affect climate. I'd be quite happy for people to stop claiming changes in solar activity are a significant factor in global warming. I note the Max Planck paper still shows UV irradation in phase with sunspot activity, so it doesn't change the argument in any way. Solar activity is a red herring.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Developing countries are moving in the right direc[…]

Lamar Smith also referenced a common denier argum[…]

Thinking about your retirement, when you are young[…]

Trump's Visit to London

It's cute how Londoners think anyone gives a shit[…]