The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

More insulation, everyone wins.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm sure the concept evolved shortly after the invention of lying.

Or is re-invented ad hoc as needed. 2009:

Evolving Robots Learn To Lie To Each Other | Popular Science

Three days ago:

AI’s art of the deal: Facebook bargaining bot learns to lie to get what it wants

[NeilBlanchard]

The Dilbert cartoon - is wrong on the science. The evidence is clear and consistent, and this is the basis for the conclusion that humans are causing the climate to change.

And climate models are largely accurate - and even too conservative. As more data comes in, the more accurate the models can be.

[oil pan 4]

Maybe one day one of them will be right.

[NeilBlanchard]

We know that we humans are causing climate change, this time. The models are largely right, and getting more accurate as we get more data. And the models are not the basis of our conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

Here's an enlightening video:

https://youtu.be/IBIET-uEbXA

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

I in? What does that even mean?

It was a fairly obvious typo - b for p - which I've now corrected. Sorry about that.

You call me a nut case and group me with flat earthers and UFO riders, but when did I deny today's term, AGW?

And did I say you were a nut case? No, I said that if you go around denying (or debating, which in this use seems practically synonymous), then that would make you a nut case. Does anyone but a nut case go around claiming that the Earth is not* a sphere?

*Approximately, of course, which is a practical comment on models and their accuracy. Modelling the Earth as flat is wrong, modelling it as a perfect sphere is also wrong, but it's close enough to truth to be useful for many purposes.

[Xist]

The other global warming poster child, Al Gore, cited this study back in 2007: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Citing the worst-case scenario did not help his credibility, or that of simulations.

Is anyone denying the climate changes? I believe the first argument in this thread was that there were far larger problems.

How much is the Paris Accord supposed to cost? Is anyone disputing $100 trillion?

Pick your favorite version of the GWP:

The gross world product (GWP) is the combined gross national product of all the countries in the world. Because imports and exports balance exactly when considering the whole world, this also equals the total global gross domestic product (GDP). In 2014, according to the CIA's World Factbook, the GWP totalled approximately US$107.5 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), and around US$78.28 trillion in nominal terms. The per capita PPP GWP in 2014 was approximately US$16,100 according to the World Factbook. According to the World Bank, the 2013 nominal GWP was approximately US$75.59 trillion.

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

Regardless of the number you choose, you want us to spend roughly 1-2% of all of the money made in the entire world for the rest of the century.

What does the Paris agreement promise? Has anyone actually read it? One of the sources I shared earlier said the goal is to reduce carbon emissions a certain percent by 2030. For what? To reduce global temperatures 2° C?

No. Once we reach that goal, we keep setting lower and lower goals, which eventually could reduce global temperatures 2° C.

If we only maintain 2030 levels while the population explodes (which sounds like a major feat in and of itself), we would only reduce global temperatures by 0.3° C.

$100 trillion for 0.54° F.

How much would the whole plan cost? $700 trillion? Quadrillions?

For two degrees centigrade, or Celsius, if you insist.

Originally Posted by Xist

I still think we could fabricate a partial sun shade over Phoenix to keep our summers civilized, slashing AC usage.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post512917

Originally Posted by redneck

Like this...???

>

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post512920

Immature name-calling has started, but I have not repeated any of the nonsense that a certain president of a certain United States with atrocious hair has said.

Frank Lee reminded us to focus on energy conservation: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post541836

I remember someone saying newer technology should be increasingly efficient, but I cannot find the post, just this by Oil Pan: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post541843

How much would $100 trillion in R&D to make products more efficient decrease global emissions?

That sounds like Bill Gate's plan.

I created that thread about "environmentally-friendly" foods. At the same time, CNN had this one: 5 things you can do about climate change - CNN.com

"Take a look around your home: What are the five most common lights you use? If you change those bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs, they'll use less energy and help reduce your impact on the environment."

Lies! Lies lies lies!

I changed our most-commonly-used lights to LED a while ago.

Anyway, I need to get to work, I need to drive my black Civic forty-five minutes each way in 120° F weather.

I think I will roll down my window.

[NeilBlanchard]

The cycle of life - the entire biosphere here on earth - is essentially a closed system. And the Laws of Physics say that NO energy or material can be created or destroyed.

So, the weathering process and other processes that have sunk carbon underground over millions of years, have removed it from the cycle.

Plants split water, and release the oxygen, and use the hydrogen along with carbon dioxide from the air to grow. When the plant dies, OR if it is eaten, the same amount of carbon eventually makes it's way back into the air. And the oxygen is breathed in by animals, and use it with the carbon in our food to grow. We breathe out carbon dioxide, that is then used by plants.

The long term balance of the system is neutral - unless humans pull carbon out of the ground, and burn it. Volcanoes also release carbon, but it is carbon 13, so we can measure how much that is.

Burning plants releases mostly carbon 12, with a known proportion of carbon 14 - the radioactive isotope of carbon. (Carbon 14 is how we do carbon dating.)

Burning fossil fuel releases ONLY carbon 12 - because it is older than 50,000 years (which is the total time it takes for carbon 14 to decay). This is one of the reasons we know that the additional carbon dioxide in the air is from fossil fuels.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The Dilbert cartoon - is wrong on the science.

The Dilbert cartoon contains no scientific facts, so it is neither right or wrong.

It is funny though, because we all know that economic modeling is junk.

Since economic modeling is junk, we would be foolish to spend vast amounts of money to defray the unknown economic costs of increasing global temperature.

It will certainly be way cheaper to simply move affected people to more habitable areas, to treat their disease and hunger, and to rebuild than to spend our way towards carbon neutrality.

Heck, the very thought of spending your way into environmental protection is silly. It's economic wealth that impacts the environment more than anything. Want to conserve energy? Be too poor to afford gasoline and electricity.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Does anyone but a nut case go around claiming that the Earth is not* a sphere?

I think it's more than that. There's not enough nutcases to account for it.

Maybe they're culling the herd psychotronically? Maybe it's a 'dinner bell' to get the nutcases to identify themselves for chemical neutering?

The story has evolved from a circular ice wall 300ft high at the South pole, to an infinite plane with it's promise of infinite resources. Look inward, don't look up. Then you might question the angular momentum of distant galaxies.

Originally Posted by Xist

Is anyone denying the climate changes? I believe the first argument in this thread was that there were far larger problems.

Good post BTW.

https://www.google.com/search?q=younger+dryas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younge...act_hypothesis

11,600 years ago there was an human society comparable in some ways to our own. It was ended by an impact in the Caribbean basin that spewed molten material toward the Northwest. North and South America burnt. The ice cap over Canada melted.

The only place mega-fauna survived was in Africa.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The cycle of life - the entire biosphere here on earth - is essentially a closed system. And the Laws of Physics say that NO energy or material can be created or destroyed.

au contraire mon frere. The Earth is coupled electrically with every other member of the Solar System. Water is created from sub-atomic particles in space.

http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/starwater/

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The Dilbert cartoon contains no scientific facts, so it is neither right or wrong.

It is funny though, because we all know that economic modeling is junk.

The cartoon describes a meta-model of scientific models. It's funny because it's true.