We're not cutting co2 emissions any time soon

[Carlton Banks]

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think.

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue. the media and the IPCC are distorting this to make it seem as if all agree with the climate-scare position, which should give pause for why that's at all necessary, considering that perspective is all supposedly based on sound undeniable facts.

[1714631042]

1714631042

[1714631042]

1714631042

[1714631042]

1714631042

[1714631042]

1714631042

[Viper1]

I think I'll stick with actual real scientists. I know very well what they're like and how they think.

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.

No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet. For example, pick some area of glaciers melting and there are some areas (like greenland melting due to it) where they all agree, and others areas not yet. As I had pointed out before from those Shell and Exxon documents, they knew all the way back in the mid 80s, that it wouldn't be until the turn of the century that they'd really start to be able to see what the data really said. And we're still in the area of time where things are in flux. But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

[Carlton Banks]

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.

No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet.

agree on what? do they agree on why? (they do not)

But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

I see data that says most of the data you're seeing is cherry-picked or otherwise exaggerated

are we both willfully blind?

[Viper1]

real scientists are divided on the anthropogenic climate change issue.

No matter where I look I see numbers that say something like 85%-97% of climate scientists agree. There are lots of specific areas they don't agree currently because the science is not there yet.

agree on what? do they agree on why? (they do not)

But all I see is that data keeps coming in to say it is happening, as opposed to data that doesn't.

I see data that says most of the data you're seeing is cherry-picked or otherwise exaggerated

are we both willfully blind?

I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

Yesterday I looked into something like 10 "scientists" that deny it, none of which were actual climate scientists. Technically, some don't. They're "skeptical". Or don't think the science is there enough yet. Then there was a guy who was shown to have lied about his credentials amongst other things. Another guy who was promoting his own ideas as to what is changing climate. He predicted we'd enter a cooling phase last year. And then the "best" was a guy who'd written a book. One graph he used had previously been shown to be bogus and the originators of it had withdrawn it. Another graph he put data points in the wrong lace to skew things. He claims volcanoes are the cause. Scientists with the data said, no, humans are doing 130 times what volcanoes are doing. He shot back and said well you're not taking into account undersea volcanoes. They replied back, no, our data includes that. That's what I find whenever I go looking. So please. Please do show me where you're getting all your info.

This is something you might be interested in. Muller was labeled as a denier although he would say "skeptic" and found fault with the data. Thing I found humorous is that the Koch brothers were one of those that funded the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

And here's an interesting interview from him where he talks about a bunch of things, including the exaggeration you mentioned.

https://www.sumologic.com/podcast/climate-science-data-richard-muller/

[Carlton Banks]

Why don't you tell me your sources of data. Cause every time I look for stuff, I don't find anything that refutes the overall agreement that man is causing climate change via CO2. I see graphics that compare solar activity. Temperature clearly goes up and up. Graph of core samples from antartic. Shows sine wave type activity for CO2 and then from 1950 on it just goes way up higher than ever before. Graph after graph, data set after data set. And never anything that credibly refutes those things.

the climate scientist who produced the original hockey stick graph lost his libel case in court a month ago.


he claimed a skeptic was libeling him. the judge asked him to present the datasets he used. He refused.


judge threw his case out, and ruled that he pay the supposed slanderer's legal fees.


he was afraid of presenting the data, and showing how he used that to produce the well-known temperature chart.


Real (credible) scientists present a far more complicated trend for global temperatures over the C20th, where the average temperature does indeed increase from the 1950's up to today. But that's not the peak, the peak was in the 1930's.

The whole Koch Bros thing is a reverse psychology trick, oil industry people actually stand to gain alot from IPCC recommendations. You shouldn't trust a single word coming out of their lying mouths, the oil producers have been a very important part of every war (and the overall resulting genocide) for the last 100 years.

[Viper1]

the climate scientist who produced the original hockey stick graph lost his libel case in court a month ago.

he claimed a skeptic was libeling him. the judge asked him to present the datasets he used. He refused.

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date. If you look into the other guy, you find someone that has been in several libel type cases against him. Where the heck do you get your information from.

he was afraid of presenting the data, and showing how he used that to produce the well-known temperature chart.

That data had been given to other scientists to use and confirm/disprove his results so thinking he's "afraid" to let others look at it is just false.

Real (credible) scientists present a far more complicated trend for global temperatures over the C20th, where the average temperature does indeed increase from the 1950's up to today. But that's not the peak, the peak was in the 1930's.

Who and where? There have been many new graphs using the same data, modifying it, adding to it, using completely different sets of data, different techniques and they all end up showing basically the same thing. That's what I find so point me at your information.

[Carlton Banks]

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date.

real court cases do not run out of time, you're making that up, aren't you?

he lost the case, when he could've proven how true it was by just presenting the data.

[Viper1]

He didn't lose it nor did he "refuse". It was dismissed cause they hadn't met some date.

real court cases do not run out of time, you're making that up, aren't you?

he lost the case, when he could've proven how true it was by just presenting the data.

No I'm not making it up. There was some deadline and apparently the legal team dragged their feet and the judge dismissed it. What's it called? Summary judgment that he has to pay the legal fees or something or other. He can appeal.

Edit: So conflicting info and I suspect without seeing the real court documents it's hard to tell. What I see is that Mann did refuse which apparently in this sort of case is a legal ploy to have the court try and get the other party to negotiate with you to come up with a resolution. That dragged on for years. Then the court pressured him or something and Mann said he would produce the data but only had 21 days and it passed and so the case was dismissed. It's not all finalized yet as far as I can tell and it can be appealed in some way so who the hell knows.

[Carlton Banks]

right

if this Mann guy really wanted to draw a line in the sand, he had a long period during this case to do so, and he essentially refused to take the opportunity, in a case he brought



But still, I don't think everyone fighting over this issue helps. I find it very regrettable, as we are wasting our efforts fighting each other while powerful people get away with countless far more egregious unethical acts, I'm sure they're very pleased to hear the slaves are fighting each other while they get away with exactly what they want.

I'm massively sympathetic to the goals of the climate change people, and I know that more often than not, their intentions are good, even if I do not agree with their arguments. I fundamentally agree that cutting down on fossil fuel use is a good thing in many, many different ways and I'm keen on alot of the renewable energy technologies that are promoted as a part of that.


Independent, powerful individuals (and any groups those people form voluntarily) are, I believe, the most important class of culture to sponsor/promote in order to balance out the power struggles going on across the world, and if people begin to create all their own energy locally without relying on the crude-oil warlords, we will be an important step closer to a world like that.

[Viper1]

if this Mann guy really wanted to draw a line in the sand, he had a long period during this case to do so, and he essentially refused to take the opportunity, in a case he brought

It could very well have been a case of "the process is the punishment". Eight years is a long time to have a case against you open. I'm sure there would have been some on going stress and the like from it.

if people begin to create all their own energy locally without relying on the crude-oil warlords, we will be an important step closer to a world like that.

I can't see that happening any time soon. For example, you've got to replace solar panels something like every 20-25 years and they have toxic materials in them. Currently they get dumped into land fills or shipped off to third world countries. Everyone is so focused on reducing CO2 etc, that they don't realize the mountain of toxic waste that is going to be produced. Maybe one day there will be panels etc that don't have that sort of drawback but until that time, the newer thorium reactors are the real "answer" but not something that can be done locally either.

There is a massive business opportunity currently out there though. Recycling (and heavy R&D to bring down the costs, get more reusable out of them etc) of all those solar panels and batteries.

[Carlton Banks]

if people begin to create all their own energy locally without relying on the crude-oil warlords, we will be an important step closer to a world like that.

I can't see that happening any time soon. For example, you've got to replace solar panels something like every 20-25 years and they have toxic materials in them. Currently they get dumped into land fills or shipped off to third world countries. Everyone is so focused on reducing CO2 etc, that they don't realize the mountain of toxic waste that is going to be produced.

Maybe one day there will be panels etc that don't have that sort of drawback but until that time, the newer thorium reactors are the real "answer" but not something that can be done locally either.

indeed, and no-one is credibly contesting the problems that landfill sites are storing up, or of the effects of toxic chemicals finding their way into ecosystems.

I thought the thorium reactor concept sounded interesting, but it also came across like a pipe-dream too (admittedly after doing only a very small amount of reading up). Although the suggestions I saw (and maybe this might be part of why I judged thorium reactors a little outlandish) included a thorium reactor powering commercial vehicles. If that really were possible (and it sounds like a big if), surely small scale reactors are reasonable?

Although perhaps not; despite deposits being well distributed across the world, I imagine that a thuggish corporate culture (similar to crude oil) could evolve around thorium too. It may be (relatively) safe to store and handle, but you can say the same thing about coal, and the coal supply is massively controlled by corporate behemoths. And despite the relatively abundant deposit distribution, India would apparently became thorium's Saudi Arabia. With the current political trends in India, I'm not too sure about that prospect.

There is a massive business opportunity currently out there though. Recycling (and heavy R&D to bring down the costs, get more reusable out of them etc) of all those solar panels and batteries.

right. Not the sexiest new tech out there, but it's a highly practical (and certainly realistic) avenue for improving the sustainability of reusable energy infrastructure.

[Viper1]

I thought the thorium reactor concept sounded interesting, but it also came across like a pipe-dream too (admittedly after doing only a very small amount of reading up). Although the suggestions I saw (and maybe this might be part of why I judged thorium reactors a little outlandish) included a thorium reactor powering commercial vehicles. If that really were possible (and it sounds like a big if), surely small scale reactors are reasonable?

Although perhaps not; despite deposits being well distributed across the world, I imagine that a thuggish corporate culture (similar to crude oil) could evolve around thorium too. It may be (relatively) safe to store and handle, but you can say the same thing about coal, and the coal supply is massively controlled by corporate behemoths. And despite the relatively abundant deposit distribution, India would apparently became thorium's Saudi Arabia, with the current political trends in India, I'm not too sure about that prospect.

The first Thorium reactor was built back in the 60/70s I think it was and ran for several years. It was basically shut down because it didn't produce the material for nuclear bombs and so no one continued working on them. That's changed though and a new small test one has been built in the Netherlands. The tech is still being worked on though and there are two types. But, when compared to regular nuclear reactors, they're far safer, produce more energy and have far less waste. I think the waste from "old" style reactors has a half life of 10,000 years but thorium is only 500 years. It should be noted though that you do still need some uranium to get it all going though but it's not the bomb type. There's something as well about making more material using breeder reactors but I haven't really looked into that.

Countries all over the world are building new nuclear plants like crazy right now. I think China and India have the highest number scheduled and they're also dumping a lot of money into thorium reactor research. I read something that said China wanted to have the first thorium one up and running within 15 years or something like that. From what I can tell, the US won't be leading this tech but will end up playing catch up.

Small local reactors would be a way out that's for sure but it could be possible one day.

[Carlton Banks]

that definitely sounds positive and practical, not as over-idealistic as my first impression.

Plus points seem to be:

• relatively old concept
• even the old implentations were experimentally successful
• less waste
• waste is less hazardous? or only dangerous for a shorter length of time? both?

Negatives are apparently:

• Thorium reactor waste is still radioactive waste
• (non-fissile) uranium needed to seed the reaction

So thorium reactors are still using a fission process, but is it correct to say that chain reactions are not possible? Or at least that they are nothing like as dangerous as the chain-reactions that fissile nuclear material (i.e. the weapons grade plutonium used in atomic weapons) can produce? There certainly seems to be no military applications for some kind of thorium based munitions, or is thorium a part of the detonation process in uranium/plutonium/hydrogen based weapons?

It's certainly interesting to hear that China and India are working on real invocations of thorium reactors, this strongly suggests the tech has potential.

[franky1]

atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%

The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%. Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate.

just to clear this matter up
33% increase but not a 33% temperature rise
they say average temperature was 15'c now 17'c =13% thus no correlation

the scientific equipment used to measure back to 1820 is not the same equipment method used for 1960+
expect anomalies between datasets using different models

also with oxygen at 780,000ppm and co2 at ~300->400ppm.. co2 is not the worry
nitrogen can change by 27000ppm purely due to if its raining or not.
the difference of rain in of itself can change by a few thousand ppm

and the funny part is. rather than taking a reading of co2 on a sunny day and a rainy day and just recorded the results as is.. after all thats the actual amount of carbon in the air, if it happend to be rainy they take that number and manipulte it into a number that represents a sunny day and just log everything as results from dry days

ok here is a test for you to try to realise how impactful something is.
ok  dry day. go to a city (high carbon) go just outside the city(low carbon) i bet there is not much temperature change
oh yea when in a city dont huddle against a skyscaper building using it as a wind break(intentional varienc). go to the top and then when in country go to a hill at the same altitude so the wind factor is the same (reduce manipulating variance)

ok now try a day where part of the day is sunny and the other part is rainy.. or be in an area of sun and drive to where its rainy. i bet the temperature is more noticable different

yep water in the atmosphere has bigger impact than carbon.

next funny fact. the warmer the temperature gets the more the water is evaporated from lakes/oceans, causing clouds which then cause temperatures to drop. (self fixing mechanism.. nature is good like that)

traffic, modern industry is said to account for just 90ppm change of atmospheric content. yes rain can make the difference of thousands of parts

so lets really concentrate on this carbon thing first
ok so they say todays 17'c average is based on 0.04% instead of previous 15'c of 0.03% 2'c increase for 0.01%
so imagine if 0.09%=12'c increase.
so imagine if 0.9%=120'c increase.
so imagine if 9%=1200'c increase.
so imagine if 90%=12000'c increase.

yet. planets like venus are 95% yet not anywhere near to 12,000'c
and also venus is closer to the sun so less heat lost in space so numbers should be even higher than 12,000'c
sorry but venus is under 500'c

here is a clue to the real climate change
RAIN forests. there are less of them meaning. less what (it begins with R)

same for the poles. snow doesnt miraculously turn up and layer the poles it comes from what.. wait.. no it doesnt magic up from less carbon. it comes from water

the water is the most impactful factor.
carbon emmissions are not that much atmosphere affecting. but water content is.

if you really think that a smoggy city on a dry day is hotter than a beach to such a degree that it makes a rainy day vs sunny day less impactful then here is another test

why isnt it hottest at 9am and 5pm when most commuters are driving to and from work/school. but is hotter/colder depending on if its a clear or rainy day

in short industry emissions is not the cause. its the lack of forests and soil rich in water. to allow for good evaporation.
these days water runs off buildings into gutters and then into drains, instead of evaporating from tree's and fields

most ocean based evaporation form clouds and then rains on the same oceans. thus hardly much lasts long enough to rain on mainlands to affect mainland results so dont try moving the observations that its oceans that cause differentials in mainland temperature studies

here is an analogy for you
co2 experts are saying co2 increased and temperature increase. thus co2 caused temperature
the analogy is that people with lung cancer have more stained teeth. thus stained teeth caused cancer

actual thing is
deforestation/ concreting and draining land of natural wet topsoil caused less water causing higher temperatures
the analogy, smoking ruins the lungs and stains the causing more risk of lung cancer

thats not to say that emissions are not harmful, as they can kill wildlife and harm human health. but thats a debate for biology not climatology

have a nice day

P.S cars and industry didnt even exist pre 1860. so even if we go carbon neutral(back to 0.03%) the temperature saving is not that much.
yet drying out the land makes a bigger impact

[carter34]

I know of two girls in the same place I work that drive trucks while not doing anything that needs a truck. One of them wants to get an even bigger truck. Like a huge one. I thinks something like a ram 2500.

Apart from bush cutting and burning trucks are more in the pollution of the environment. The solution for me is creating laws that will limit so many people who don't have business with driving certain cars, trucks that emits so much carbon from plying the road , like in the case of the quote.

[KonstantinosM]

I know of two girls in the same place I work that drive trucks while not doing anything that needs a truck. One of them wants to get an even bigger truck. Like a huge one. I thinks something like a ram 2500.

Apart from bush cutting and burning trucks are more in the pollution of the environment. The solution for me is creating laws that will limit so many people who don't have business with driving certain cars, trucks that emits so much carbon from plying the road , like in the case of the quote.

Yeah, you have some people driving 15,000 pound trucks (like the deuce and a half) for recreation, that's excessive, however I don't think limiting personal freedom is going to solve the problem. There's a lot more cuts to be made elsewhere, and providing the right incentives would allow people to keep their freedom to own whatever vehicle they may.

Higher carbon taxes (affecting gasoline and diesel) would definitely help there, more than trying to control who drives what, which I personally and many others would find repugnant.

Plus you can have a certain fuel allotment that will be tax exempt for your necessary transportation. Enough to cover the majority of necessary driving for most people, up to a reasonable amount.

Electric cars charged with home solar wouldn't have to pay any fuel taxes, by nature thus being incentivized in comparison.

[franky1]

this pdf doesnt include h₂o thus is void of showing the true composition of the atmosphere

According to the EPA, CO₂ in the atmosphere is the predominant factor (https://climatechange.lta.org/wp-content/uploads/cct/2015/02/EPA-climate-forcing-2014.pdf). Regardless of the effect of water vapor, CO₂ has a significant impact.

the atmosphere has hundreds of thousands of water vapour particles but only thousands of carbon

the planets heat control is in two parts. ground level reflection and cloud level reflection
odolvlobo linked an article suggesting that carbon is making snow black and how snow being black makes the planet heat up.
sorry last time i checked. snow was still white
also the 60% attributed to water vapour was not of both land reflection AND cloud level

now here is some easy to observe test
take a concrete slab. put it on the ground. take some carbon throw it ontop. can you see much of a difference in how reflective it is. EG could you see your reflection in the concrete more before the carbon.. no because concrete aint reflective in the first place. adding carbon does not change things as its already not reflective.

now throw some water on the slab.
oh look a puddle. can you see your reflection now? yes. because water reflects. yep water reflects a heck of alot more than carbon does

what is also observable is that solid liquid(ice) burns at a lower temperature than carbon does
its why at room temperature h₂0 is a liquid and carbon is still a solid. its why at body temperature water evaporates to a gas but carbon is still a solid

at cloud layer reflection its water. not carbon clouds.
for carbon to even get high enough into the stratosphere requires a huge amount of heat

this is why statistics foolishly try to only measure 'atmosphere' particles from just the troposphere(ground level up to clouds) rather than troposphere to ionosphere aswell
even more foolish is studies pre1960 were just based on ICE layers. meaning. just ground level itself

but ignoring certain particles and avoiding showing the whole composition of the atmosphere then yes they can create new narrative

again carbon in full atmosphere is only 0.04% yet take out water and be foolishly ignorant of water, sways the stats making it look like we are living in clouds made of soot. where snow rains down as black coal and where temperatures should be 18000 degrees

..
other planets like my previous post hinted but are independantly observable and researchable show that planets where there is no water vapour and where carbon is higher, even at 95% atmosphere are not thousands of degrees.
which also disproves that a change of 0.01% carbon caused a 2 degree change
because just 1.04% carbon is then supposedly a 200 degree change and a 3% carbon is a 600 degree change

but other planets of 95% carbon are not 18000 degrees. and again as hinted. these planets are CLOSER to the sun before people pretend that distance to the sun of planets further away cools it. infact closer to the sun would mean even hotter than 18000. yet. they are not 18000, not even 1800 but even lower

when people realise that carbons 'effect' has been intentionally swayed by being ignorant by excluding h20 in stats. is like ignoring flour

...
other observations
our human bodies. our bodies have evolved to survive by knowing how to expel heat from our bodies
when we sweat we cool our body by releasing water vapour. but having a bowl movement and releasing carbon does not cause the same temperature decline.
.
if carbon was a bigger heat reduction control. we would literally sweat out soot and tar.... but we dont

[Gyfts]

...
My car has a tank that takes more than 20 gallons of gas and due to traffic I only get about 17 mpg.
...

I believe that electric cars will be outselling gasoline-powered cars within 10 years. Electric cars are much more efficient than gasoline-powered cars, and as more electricity is generated by non-fossil fuel technologies, I think that fossil fuel usage could drop by 50%.

Unless you live in a few select countries (Canada/Brazil/Norway/France etc, you can assume your power is coming primarily from coal burning plants.

The highest efficiency coal plants are in the mid 30 to 40ish % efficient. Modern gasoline engines in cars are about 30% efficient with older models being lower, and some newer models being in the upper 30% range, with diesel vehicles being more efficient than gasoline. The world needs to change its power supply (not to solar...) before electric cars are any better for the environment than gasoline or diesel burning cars.

Anything climate related is such a weird topic now because its been politicized. Imagine sitting around a holiday table with family and discussing astronomy or gravity and having it as a politically polarizing topic.

Important to also note the high yield nature and efficiency of nuclear power. I know most countries are adopted nuclear power whereas countries like the US are tending to go backwards due to safety concerns.

The fact is, nuclear power is by far the most efficient form of alternate energy away from fossil fuels and nuclear power is the only way climate change is going to get addressed with current energy needs. China and India are not going to slow down population growth any time soon and coal/fossil fuels aren't going to get the job done.

[Carlton Banks]

The fact is, nuclear power is by far the most efficient form of alternate energy away from fossil fuels and nuclear power is the only way climate change is going to get addressed with current energy needs. China and India are not going to slow down population growth any time soon and coal/fossil fuels aren't going to get the job done.

This sort of statement has always (in the past, at least) ignored the issue of nuclear waste. There's always some large proportion of nuclear fuel that cannot be repurposed once it's life-cycle in the powerplant is complete. It tends to be the highly radioactive material with 100's or 1000's of years half-life, and it therefore needs incredibly long-term safe/secure storage facilities.

I can believe that the re-use of spent nuclear fuel is constantly improving, but there's always going to be some significant proportion that cannot be reused or re-processed, and it's always an unrepresented hidden cost of the entire "enterprise" (i.e. the long term costs of storing radioactive waste offset against the economics of running a nuclear power plant make it appear overall a very expensive way of producing electricity)

[odolvlobo]

The fact is, nuclear power is by far the most efficient form of alternate energy away from fossil fuels and nuclear power is the only way climate change is going to get addressed with current energy needs. China and India are not going to slow down population growth any time soon and coal/fossil fuels aren't going to get the job done.

This sort of statement has always (in the past, at least) ignored the issue of nuclear waste. There's always some large proportion of nuclear fuel that cannot be repurposed once it's life-cycle in the powerplant is complete. It tends to be the highly radioactive material with 100's or 1000's of years half-life, and it therefore needs incredibly long-term safe/secure storage facilities.

I can believe that the re-use of spent nuclear fuel is constantly improving, but there's always going to be some significant proportion that cannot be reused or re-processed, and it's always an unrepresented hidden cost of the entire "enterprise" (i.e. the long term costs of storing radioactive waste offset against the economics of running a nuclear power plant make it appear overall a very expensive way of producing electricity)

The key question is this: For an equivalent amount of generated energy, which produces a more dangerous amount of waste -- nuclear or fossil fuels? I believe the answer is that fossil fuels produce the more dangerous waste.

Also, which will cost more -- storing nuclear waste safely or mitigating the effects of global warming? I believe the answer is that mitigating the effects of global warming will cost more.