The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

If I read one of them the thread would run away from me. I'm just trying to keep up.

The point would be more like, 'if no subsequent post, then edit instead'.

I didn't want to bury so many data references into a list, and make it easy to skip over. I grouped some of them into similar areas.

You can just read the titles of the links and get the idea. That can't possibly be too time consuming. And what can I say - there is a lot of evidence for what is actually happening.

By ignoring the data points I linked to, folks can continue to cling to their erroneous ideas, and deny the massive accumulation of climate science. A field of science that is about 200 years old.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Can you say 'euphemism'? I knew you could.

You've correctly assumed the first iteration that ran through my mind. I'm all about minimum necessary force... unless a swift kick in the pants would be more tolerable for both parties.

I figure the first level of force is to simply state that you won't be coerced into participating in tyranny.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When I get time I'm going to listen to the testimony (and one day read his book) so that I'm prepared to consider your specific accusations of deceit.

So far as I can tell, Crichton is acting in good faith in the same manner that Bjorn Lomborg is. That is to say, trying to shift attention to problem areas most likely to benefit humanity, and to find the appropriate level of concern. As an aside, it's often pretty easy to tell when someone is speaking from conviction, or when they are speaking to mislead. There is no indication from either person that they are speaking with the intent to mislead. Again, I'd ask for tell-tale signs that they are attempting to mislead, other than they disagree with your held position.

A disagreement about what level of concern people should have surrounding various issues is frustrating, but isn't an indication of malfeasance.

Let's imagine for a moment that the most extreme alarmist positions on global warming never come to pass, not because their prescription for the problem was followed, but because the problem was not as intractable as they imagined. Should those people be condemned for inciting undue worry and financial hardship?

I have seen no evidence that "the court of popular opinion" has convicted Crichton of anything except writing compelling stories and directing/producing some entertaining movies. Popular opinion doesn't consist of some small group of extremists, rather it encompasses all people.

Finally, I wouldn't even go so far as to call AOC a liar, as my best assessment of her is that she's embellishing the underlying beliefs she holds, similarly to how Trump operates. As you point out, squishing the facts to create a sense of urgency from the public. The second part of Crichton's quote is "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.". My modification of that would be whenever you hear that you must quickly surrender freedom to avoid catastrophe, to reach for your levers of resistance, because your individuality is under assault.

I don't know what their intentions were.The fact that what they had to say about climate science,or not say,influenced policy decisions,and has implications as to whether or not we'll be able to act in time to avert a situation we'll end up regretting.We don't get a do-over on this one.
It's the Rumsfeldian conundrum.What Lomberg and Crichton didn't know is the dangerous part.And they didn't know they didn't know.Unknown unknowns.
And as an economist,Lomberg's especially dangerous,as he's unaware of the hidden costs/externalities he's omitted from his accounting.By not advocating for a transition to renewables,he's actually chosen the path of economic ruin.His status quo worldview chooses,and locks in, the most inefficient and expensive power sources imaginable,finally beginning the transition long after the ship has sailed.In his world,3.195 = 1.
As to your thought experiment,I would remark; I'm unsure who the 'alarmists' are and what they advocate.As to climate scientists,if they're alarmed,it maybe because they know the state-of-the-art in physics,materials technology,manufacturing feasibility,etc.,and they know better than anyone what our options,or lack thereof would be, when considering our circumstances.And their greatest fear may be that we're just going to argue this climate thing to death, while any door of opportunity quietly closes behind us while we argue.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

One weakness with the presentation is,no mention of 'The average input heat rate for fossil-fuel steam-electric power plant generation.'
Utility-scale electric power generation requires 3.195 kWh worth of fossil-fuel heat energy to produce 1-kWh of net electrical output.68.7% of the fuel's energy is lost at the stack,cooling tower,pond,lake,ocean.

New combined cycle gas plants are claiming 64% efficiency.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I don't know what their intentions were.The fact that what they had to say about climate science,or not say,influenced policy decisions,and has implications as to whether or not we'll be able to act in time to avert a situation we'll end up regretting.We don't get a do-over on this one.
It's the Rumsfeldian conundrum.What Lomberg and Crichton didn't know is the dangerous part.And they didn't know they didn't know.Unknown unknowns.

Not knowing what their intentions were is different from what I was previously hearing; that they know what they are saying is incorrect, yet they proceed to say it. A lie.

I'd say that the unknown, unknowns are part of the message of both Bjorn and Michael. If every action results in an infinite and complex series of reverberating reactions, then any drastic action should be as carefully considered as possible.

And as an economist,Lomberg's especially dangerous,as he's unaware of the hidden costs/externalities he's omitted from his accounting.By not advocating for a transition to renewables,he's actually chosen the path of economic ruin.His status quo worldview chooses,and locks in, the most inefficient and expensive power sources imaginable,finally beginning the transition long after the ship has sailed.In his world,3.195 = 1.

I just listened to a recent Lomborg interview where he advocates for developing alternative / advanced sources of energy. The thrust of his message is that we can't expect nearly 100% of countries on earth to act out of goodness, because tragedy of the commons will always result. There has to be sufficient self-interest to change, such as adopting new technologies that provide advantages over the previous technology.

As to your thought experiment,I would remark; I'm unsure who the 'alarmists' are and what they advocate.As to climate scientists,if they're alarmed,it maybe because they know the state-of-the-art in physics,materials technology,manufacturing feasibility,etc.,and they know better than anyone what our options,or lack thereof would be, when considering our circumstances.And their greatest fear may be that we're just going to argue this climate thing to death, while any door of opportunity quietly closes behind us while we argue.

You've failed to participate in the thought experiment, which wasn't meant to attach titles or precise definitions to the "alarmists", but to imagine that any person can hold a wrong conviction and speak to it, and that alone isn't sufficient to condemn them. Motive is important.

Finally, what to do about climate change exists on a continuum that spans from do nothing at all, to everyone killing themselves. The likelihood that someone else falls exactly on that continuum where I do is as close to zero as can exist. At what point do we condemn someone for not holding close enough view of what to do as we do? What I'm saying is that even the most educated and brilliant scientists studying climate change would not agree with each other on what to do. For that reason, the topic necessarily becomes one of politics and not one of science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyXduteiWE&t=0m41s

[freebeard]

No one commented on the linked story about a data black hole in Africa; but no worries, here's another story:

Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age
https://www.foxnews.com/science/expl...ea-ice-ice-age

edit:
https://youtu.be/tabGuqQRWgo
In this latest instalment of Fully Charged News; Robert Llewellyn discusses US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Rep AOC) giving Exxon climate change research scientists a grilling over ExxonMobil’s climate change cover up:

10:59
...it is a privilege and I appreciate
11:01
it what people are seeing is electric
11:03
cars working you retrogressive nija
11:06
ultra right-wing extremists nutbag shut
11:10
up
11:10
take your virtue signaling and stick it
11:12
where the Sun doesn't shine cuz you
11:14
won't getting solar power up there
11:15
anyway...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

New combined cycle gas plants are claiming 64% efficiency.

It's the best thing we have for fossil-fuels.
In Italy they're doing combined heat and power,with mechanical efficiencies up to 90%.
In Denmark,they're boot-strapping home heating onto the waste heat stream and exceeding 90% overall.
Lithium-bromide absorption chillers can be bootstrapped on to get some refrigeration,cool-pools,to augment chilled-water systems.(flat-plate solar can do likewise).
Some industrial planners advocate locating manufacturing at power generation facilities to take advantage of 'free' process heat,pre-heating,drying operations,etc..
Dr.Wyesessions only peeve with natural gas,was the fracking issue,and inadvertent methane release associated with it.
Also,fossil-fuel electric power production is the US' largest water user,exceeding even that of US' agriculture.Evaporative losses for a single-pass,cooling system on a 1-GW unit equals 300,000 gallons an hour,at 83,333 gpm.
No doubt,we'll be using gas into the near future,but ultimately,we've got to get away from all combustion unless we can nail the carbon-capture & sequestration issue at 100%.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It's the best thing we have for fossil-fuels.
In Italy they're doing combined heat and power,with mechanical efficiencies up to 90%.
In Denmark,they're boot-strapping home heating onto the waste heat stream and exceeding 90% overall.
Lithium-bromide absorption chillers can be bootstrapped on to get some refrigeration,cool-pools,to augment chilled-water systems.(flat-plate solar can do likewise).
Some industrial planners advocate locating manufacturing at power generation facilities to take advantage of 'free' process heat,pre-heating,drying operations,etc..
Dr.Wyesessions only peeve with natural gas,was the fracking issue,and inadvertent methane release associated with it.
Also,fossil-fuel electric power production is the US' largest water user,exceeding even that of US' agriculture.Evaporative losses for a single-pass,cooling system on a 1-GW unit equals 300,000 gallons an hour,at 83,333 gpm.
No doubt,we'll be using gas into the near future,but ultimately,we've got to get away from all combustion unless we can nail the carbon-capture & sequestration issue at 100%.

I've always wondered why we're boiling water to generate electricity and just letting it go. Seems more efficient to use the heat directly to provide mechanical force for power generation, and then capture waste heat for other uses.

If water must be boiled, might as well combine it in a desalination process and condenser to create fresh water.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

It has nothing to do with climate science.

It goes to the validity of the claim that climate change is not as dire as predicted.





>

[redneck]

Originally Posted by freebeard

No one commented on the linked story about a data black hole in Africa; but no worries, here's another story:

Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age
https://www.foxnews.com/science/expl...ea-ice-ice-age

The Earth cools down then warms up then cools down...???

It’s cyclical...???

Who would have thought...???




>