|
The MoA Week In Review – (NOT Ukraine) OT 2022-76
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Russiagate:
Multipolarism:
Talks:
Use as open NOT Ukraine thread …
@Tom_Q_Collins #25
You said:
Could you give us all a little, er…clue in good faith? Do you work for the fossil fuel or fossil fuel based energy generation industries?
I do not work for fossil fuel companies in any way, shape or form.
I do not benefit from fossil fuels in any way, shape or form – in fact, my personal benefit is far lower than the vast majority of 1st world people, as I’ve documented (no car, public transport etc).
I will further add that I have historically been environmentalist – I believed the dogma in the 2000 time frame. But the divergence of reality from the perpetually postponed tipping points and temperature increase acceleration tipped off my very well developed scam meter. It was around 2004 that I started looking in depth into the issue and found ever deeper and deeper wells of bullshit.
And note that I am in full agreement that temperatures are increasing…
You said:
What of Exxon’s research on the burning of fossil fuels dating back to the late 60s?
What about it? Companies research stuff all the time. The research isn’t necessarily correct or even material. Keep in mind we had no satellites in the 1960s…
You said:
Do you honestly believe that the massive amounts of fossil fuels extracted and burned for energy are not negatively impacting the Earth’s environment for the majority of the Earth’s human and animal inhabitants?
You need to define what you mean by “negatively impacting the Earth’s environment for the majority of the Earth’s human and animal inhabitants”.
From a standard of living standpoint, there is zero question that fossil fuels have improved life for humans on Earth, period, regardless of the “dirty or not” environment they live in.
For the critters, it is bad if you aren’t a farmed plant or animal. But then you’ll have to create an equation showing just where human prosperity trades off vs. the plants and animals. There is no question that the vast majority of wild plants that are still around, are benefiting from increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, where they still haven’t been plowed over for farms or houses.
You said
If you were to assign percentages, what percent of the changing climate is attributable to human activity vs. other causes (please name them as you understand them to be – no need for a detailed explanation)?
It isn’t necessary for me to provide a replacement number to call bullshit on obvious error based on historical failure to perform.
But to me, the obvious effects of enormous land use changes – the change of forest/plains to cities, suburbs, factories and farms are significant.
These land use changes affect previous flows of energy and water. Swathes of vegetation give off enormous amounts of water vapor, for example. One reason the San Joaquin valley is so foggy is because of all the plants spewing for water vapor.
The urban heat island effect is also, itself, a major factor. One of the details completely ignored by the consensus is that it actually isn’t the “day/season/year” high temperatures that are changing, so much as it is the “day/season/year” low temperatures that are increasing. Or in other words, if a given spot had an “average” 80 high and 60 low on a given day, the temperature increases are not 82 high and 62 low but rather 80.5 high and 63.5 low. This is significant because it is well documented that replacing forest/plain with buildings/roads/farms changes the reflection/absorption profile of a piece of land.
But of course, changing land use is far, far more difficult and wrenching than solar PV panels and wind replacing never seen electricity generating plants…
The video above has a section which specifically looks at the mathematical impact of CO2, Methane etc on the total 33 degree C greenhouse effect on Earth. The actual effect, from “physics”, is about 1 degree C going from 200 to 400 ppm CO2. But the consensus says the effect is much higher than 1 degree C due to “feedbacks” – feedbacks which are both assumed to be psotive reinforcing and which we still do not see in reality but are expected to start any day now.
That day has kept getting pushed back ever since 2002 – 20 years and running now.
Posted by: c1ue | May 29 2022 19:31 utc | 36
@Tom_Q_Collins #55
Let’s take your latest list and further expand, first, then I’ll address the “rebuttal”
1) Saying that you acknowledge the Earth is warming, due to certain types of human activity, just not the burning of fossil fuels;
I’m saying the Earth is warming due to LIA recovery. This is very clear from millenia scales. Is there warming from humans added on? Very possibly, but the actual amount is very unclear.
2) Are steadfastly against alternative energy – save perhaps nuclear? – as a means of reducing CO2 and other compounds/molecules because you think it’s all a big money making hoax;
No, I am not against alternative energy.
I am against crap replacement energy sources which don’t actually either replace the existing capability (cap factor, generation profile AND reliability) or even remotely replace the economic impact of existing capability (horrifically expensive due to need for backup, need for curtailment, very high up front costs, etc etc).
If we had literally no choices as in the “peak oil” doomsters were correct, alternative energy might be acceptable then … except we do have an alternative that is proven to work: nuclear. Nuclear is even literally carbon free.
The “alternative energy” as defined today to be acceptable is pure nonsense.
3) Are acknowledging the negative effects of deforestation and factory farming in the global south including deleterious effects leading to overall planetary warming(?);
I acknowledge the negative effects of deforestation, city building, road building, i.e. all of the environmental impacts of 7.6 billion humans on Earth.
Are they leading to warming? Not clear, probably but How much?
How would we fix it? Who pays? Who decides the tradeoff of poor humans vs. rich? Of poor humans vs. “the environment”?
I can’t say that the limousine liberal environmental movement has inspired any confidence in me that they will execute rationally and ethically – rather what I clearly see: venally and selfishly.
4) Don’t think it’s worth anyone’s while to look for ways to reduce global warming because it’s mostly outside of our control (?)
I am 100% for research into alternative energy, storage or other methods which can actually replace existing energy ecosystems, as opposed to parasitically damage them. And if/when such approximately equivalent or superior systems are found, to then replace fossil fuels.
I am 100% for ways to mitigate the negative effects of warming – human or not is irrelevant – because there are negative effects as well as positive ones, this being reality as opposed to a video game or movie.
I am 100% against overtly ideologically bureaucratic organizations feasting on government money to promote their very obvious agendas.
I am 100% against meekly accepting what a bunch of proven liars, manipulators and bad faith scientists have been spouting out.
Now for the supposed debunking:
For example, he claims the Hockey Stick temperature chart is wrong. He claims that it was warmer in medieval times, 1,000 years ago, than it is today. He commits a logical fallacy when he writes that in the past the change in CO2 lagged the change in temperature, implying that it therefore cannot cause the rise in temperature we see today. We deal with some of these issues in this article.
First: The article was not written w/ respect to the video.
The video makes zero mention of the hockey stick, for example.
Second: past CO2 lags of temperature increases are not indicative of today or the future.
Ok, if we accept that, then the consensus doom-monger climate movement cannot keep saying that CO2 is causing temperature increases, either.
The true scientific revolution is the existence of the null hypothesis: there is no requirement to be positive or negative, which is what this so-called critique is implying. Fail.
Third: A litany of supposed evidence.
It’s getting hotter. The mean global surface temperature is increasing, very quickly. This can be seen by monitoring temperatures changes on land and sea. Gardeners, farmers and wine producers know that planting zones are shifting to the poles; northwards in the northern hemisphere, and southwards below the equator. Spring snow has shown a marked decline in the northern hemisphere.
Wait, didn’t we just say that if you’re going to ignore the past record, you can hardly start saying the CO2 correlation with temperature is causation?
Fail.
Sea level is rising. This is because the oceans are getting warmer (expansion of water) and ice sheets and glaciers are melting.
The problem is that sea level rising was occurring long before mass fossil fuel use and the increase is the same now and then. So it cannot possibly be “primarily due to human CO2”.
Heat waves are worse than they used to be. The heat wave in India earlier this year was among the most deadly ever recorded anywhere. There have been disastrous heat waves in Europe this century as well, which were most likely exacerbated by global warming (see this article in Nature, also).
If temperatures increase, would not heat waves also increase?
There are also major issues with “ever recorded anywhere” – a record that spans very little time. The record is not more than 300 years, an eyeblink in geologic time. Furthermore, an increase in heat waves due to temperature increases does not mean either the heat waves or the temperature increases are due to human influence.
Worsening drought. Heat waves and warming generally exacerbates drought, like the current drought in California.
This is garbage from the get-go. The usual conflation of present weather with supposed climate – made doubly ironic because the weather models are predicting MORE rainfall for California in the future due to global warming.
Wetter California Projected by CMIP6 Models With Observational Constraints Under a High GHG Emission Scenario
the state-of-the-art Earth system models (ESMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) projected −3% to +42% and −27% to +63% precipitation changes in northern and central-southern CA, respectively, under the high greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenario (SSP585)
Wildfires are burning more fiercely. Worsening heat and drought also means that fires can burn more fiercely — like the firestorms in Australia (Canberra, Kinglake and Tasmania and elsewhere), in North America (Canada, Alaska, California, Washington, Arizona and elsewhere), and in Europe (Greece and across the Mediterranean), and Asia (Siberia, Indonesia), and Africa (Cape Town)
More anecdotal junk. We do know for a fact that the US is reforesting, because prior to fossil fuels – trees were a major source of fuel. Ditto for Europe. We also know for sure the fuel levels (i.e. accumulated dry biomass) in forests has been increasing steadily decades (at least party due to higher CO2 levels). Add in more humans living in the forests, well duh we will have more and hotter fires.
Flash floods are getting worse. Heavy rains are more frequent and are contributing to flash floods. Events such as the 2013 Colorado floods, this year’s Riviera flash flood, and Australia’s Big Wet are likely to become more frequent. The “worst floods in 50 years” is becoming a more common headline (eg for Malawi, India and Pakistan, and Japan).
This is flat out wrong – IPCC says there is little evidence of increased flooding. There is tons of evidence of increased humans living on flood plains, however.
Tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) are expected to become stronger. Some scientists feel this is already happening. Because there are only a few tropical cyclones each year, it will take some time to determine trends as the world warms. Haiyan was the fiercest storm ever recorded at landfall, and like Katrina, was strengthened by warm sea water at depth, not just on the surface, which is almost certainly due to global warming. Hurricane Patricia was the most intense ever measured in the Western Hemisphere. The total amount of energy that shows up in tropical cyclones, globally, has been increasing in recent decades.
This is flat out wrong. Total energy, damage, numbers of cat 3 hurricanes making landfall in the US – all of these are down vs. historical record (and note historical record is only about 150 years).
So net net: the usual Skeptical Science stack of garbage.
It is also clear you did not even bother to watch even short parts of the video, choosing instead to outsource your brain activity to Google Search and thence to Skeptical Science.
This is exactly how “the consensus” works.
Posted by: c1ue | May 30 2022 15:42 utc | 90
|
