The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists
Please read before commenting.
The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists - IOPscience The questions in the survey are the same as the ones given to climate scientists a few years ago, and are at the end of the paper. While 97% believe we are a significant contributor, but doesn't define what they mean as significant. A later question helps clear things up #27, has 70% believing we are responsible for more than 50% with 20% of respondents unsure. Even as a skeptic I still fall into the 97%. |
Nearly every controversial topic revolves around political, philosophical, and cultural differences. Nothing surprising here.
I believe human factors play a significant role in global warming. However, I don't believe it's anywhere near as big of a problem as many other human caused problems. We still have war, starvation, exploitation, theft, murder, disease, and many other causes of suffering that can be more easily remedied by focusing our efforts and resources directly on them. The study referenced above implies that people behave contrary to "the facts", and yet it's climate activists that largely ignore the fact that there is little we can do to halt global warming and at great expense. Meanwhile, the effort and money dedicated to that problem can be more effectively used to directly reduce human suffering and promote well-being in other ways. My objection to the imperative espoused by climate alarmists was unclear to me until I heard what Bjorn Lomborg has to say. Basically, global warming is a big deal, but there are many big deals out there that are more pressing concerns, and stand a larger chance of being positively influenced at a lower cost. |
Quote:
Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time - SNF Long story short — using chemtrials to ameliorate rising temps in a solar minimum is el stupido. There was also a report on a mechanism that affects coronal heating, the speed of the heliosphere and even earthquakes. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...a-wave-physics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzWzY3WYrU |
They're Okay until they hit puberty. :confused: Then it's "Whoa, Nellie!"
Note: That April the First S0 post quotes previously published papers; so it's prolly reliable. Edit: I no longer see the comment that was in reply to. :confused: |
I just hope people would be more aware of how dangerous global warming is. People don't know it's bad because they don't see the changes... YET. But there will be a time, soon enough when everyone's going to be sorry for not helping the planet... It's all our fault, pretty much.
|
Hmm old topic got revived. Whatever.
@redpoint5: I've seen you say as much before, "it's real but we can't do much, and there's more pressing problems we can more easily solve with less money anyway." What are your thoughts on problems that climate change is indirectly causing? For example, changing weather patterns leads to unpredictable rainfall, which leads to crop failures and food shortages, which is politically//socially destabilizing in the affected regions. Another example is that warming is moving the mosquito line further towards the poles (and other bugs too, such as the ash borer) which spread disease or kill trees//crops. |
As long as China and India don't think it's a problem there isn't anything the developed world can do.
Any reductions made by the US, oh Canada, UK, and Europe will be replaced and them some by fast growing China and india. The only thing the big developed nations could do that would have any lasting or immediate effect would be to build more nuclear power plants. Everyone says they want to reduce CO2 until they are actually given options that will reduce CO2. Then all of a sudden they don't want to do it. |
theres oo many people on this planet.
If we solved world poverty overnight, imagine the demands on natural resources we would have in the world, if everyone were as rich as the "average" westerner |
Quote:
Mainstream science and media are ignorant. Pushing a cap-and-trade or Carbon tax solution is using financial shenanigans to address a situation that is misunderstood. Nuclear is at an impasse until the 'requirement' for uranium and plutonium is replaced by Thorium. The big players are going renewable: www.google.com/search?q=renewable+energy+in+china+and+india Then there is " if everyone were as [profligate] as the "average" westerner" |
Other countries use poverty to control their population.
These governments have no need for their population to be literate, to have currency or access to out side influence. Remember I have been to some of these places. |
Quote:
Rainfall has always been unpredictable, and crop failure has always been a threat. Data shows that even if climate change has negatively impacted food production, we have more than offset those losses. Global food production per person has trended upwards since at least 1961. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conten...on-768x538.png https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person/ I despise mosquitos as much as anyone, but there are more effective ways to control their numbers and their impact on health than the futile effort to turn down the temperature of the entire world. Malaria is an extremely survivable disease given adequate healthcare. It's orders of magnitude easier to provide adequate healthcare to people than to freeze those suckers out through climate change. Controlling their numbers through chemical or biological means is also much cheaper. Heck, CRISPR might even eliminate the ability for mosquitoes to transmit malaria.Mosquitos are a red herring to the discussion of the impact of global climate change on human quality of life. The threat of nuclear war poses a much more likely threat to humanity than global warming, for instance. It's not that climate change is not worth thinking about, it just isn't worth getting angry or losing sleep over... and buying a Prius certainly isn't something a person should feel smug about. Fortunately conservation and efficiency have their own intrinsic rewards, so the natural progression of things is to improve efficiency and conservation of resources. This progression of technology and efficiency will "automatically" reduce future greenhouse emissions way more than any silly Kyoto Protocol. Fighting human nature is a losing proposition. Even if 99% of people agree that humans have a significant impact on global warming, their behavior will change very little. |
In times of uncertainly, fall back on your own internal moral compass (Praise Kek). Respect your grey-beard elders:
Quote:
Quote:
*cough*vertical farms*cough* |
redpoint you're all over the map. But overall you sound very jaded.
The last thing you mentioned was fighting human nature is pointless. But my experience has been that humans have many kinds of lifestyles and natures. I've also noticed that money talks. Making consumption of fossil fuels expensive prompts people to do other things. Solar is becoming cheaper than coal in the USA. We're at a point now where the green energy revolution is happening and has started become economical. At the same time electric drivetrain options and batteries are becoming better and better for transportation. And automakers are finally making aerodynamics a serious part of every vehicle they produce. Pretty soon, in most situations, the green options are going to be the cheap options, and that's going to drive a change in human behaviour. |
Quote:
- I feel sort of... semi-optimistic that we can still reduce our carbon footprint further. More and more, online work and even online shopping are reducing the need for travel. When you've got a population that only travels for special occassions rather than to work and shop, you've got a vastly reduced carbon footprint per head. Then there's the whimsical news that the adoption of LED lighting is shrinking the GDP... :D ...we've got ways to bring things down without spending huge amounts. Maybe the future won't have millions of cars in it... and maybe I won't be able to read at night by the warm glow of an incandescent bulb (but "fake" LED-powered incandescent-a-likes, with their LED "filaments" are amusing enough)... but I expect I can live with that. |
The US has also lead the way in renewables. The US has been the number 1 producer of geothermal power since the 1960s. Was the number one producer of hydroelectric from the 1930s up until recently.
A iron smelting company in Maine started the first some what large scale recycling program in the 1820s when they figured out a way to add old metal bits to new iron ore and get everything to melt. Most recycling stopped after world War 2 due to cheap energy. |
Brayton Point - the last coal fired power plant in Massachusetts - closed down today.
In Somerset, Last Coal-Burning Power Plant In Mass. Shuts Down | Bostonomix |
What replaced that coal fired capacity?
Not all coal plants are bad, some fly ash is needed to make cement and pavement. Unless anyone thinks burning coal just for the fly ash is a good idea. |
Quote:
Quote:
https://frustratedboomers.files.word...oto-change.png |
Quote:
|
No love for Moon power? It's reliable and inexhaustible.
Oscillating water column | Energy without Carbon |
Energy with out carbon?
HA! They show solar panels. Mono solar panels need liquid helium during production, I think they all need silicon doped with some funky rare earth metals, the mining of which requires a lot of waste radioactive elements to be brought up to the surface. Also very chemical and energy intensive. The silicon based solar panel epoxy comes from the perto chemical industry. Tempered glass, requires all the stuff glass needs, so natural gas to melt it and heat treat it. Aluminum for the frames and everything that goes along with aluminum mining and recycling. Wind turbines. Require a base made with a few tons of rebar, 20 to 30 tons of concrete. The monopole is 20 to 30 tons of steel, or maybe that was for each section of the monopole. The nacelle is usually around 30 tons of mostly steel, that includes the gear box generator and swivel. The hub is usually up to 10 tons of steel. Just the steel plate the blades bolts to is 3 inches thick and weighs more 2 or 3 cars. Each blade can be up to up to 15 tons of mostly fiber glass. Each wind turbine needs a transformer that weighs a few tons. Each wind turbine has 50 to 150 gallons of oils, more if they are hydraulic actuated. Less if they are mostly electric. Unlike solar panels at least almost all of the wind turbines parts can be recycled. With solar panels, you can recycle the aluminum frame and wires, that's about it. If you love solar panels and wind turbines you also have to love the coal, oil, mining and petro chemical industry. |
Quote:
I would say that people moving to green options because they are cheaper DOES NOT fight human nature at all. On a whole, people will pick the cheapest energy source that is readily available and reliable. Currently, gasoline and diesel powered cars fill that criteria well. Electric cars do not, because there are availability and reliability issues that still need to be worked out. As technology improves and charging stations become more prevalent, that may change. Fighting human nature would be to expect them to go to "green" options even though they are expensive, unreliable, and/or unavailable. That is a battle you WILL lose. |
Quote:
https://books.google.com/books?id=bW...ciency&f=false I don't know how to quote from a Google books result, but the first paragraph describes how Fuller envisioned system theory and voluntarism increasing the overall efficiency of energy use. He also advocated renewal sources and an electrical inter-tie across the Bering Strait. So also clothesline paradox. |
Quote:
But China's per capita CO2 is still half that of the United States' level. The Chinese government has done... and is still doing... a lot of boneheaded things with those trillions in cash it has lying around... and the specter of economic recession hangs firmly over the country as China desperately tries to export its money through loans and government-to-government transactions to try to draw more countries into its orbit... but one thing they're doing right is investing massively in renewables and alternative energy, as part of an overall strategy at energy independence and pollution mitigation. Sure, we can (and do) argue that renewables are expensive, possibly not cost-efficient and etcetera... but by being bullish on renewables, China has managed to become world leader in solar energy supply... exporting it elsewhere. The current US administration's inward looking focus towards fossil fuels is problematic. The price of oil is just too low, and while it has risen, prices are unlikely to go back to the levels that made quickly-depleted new wells financially lucrative. Of the three superpowers, US, China and Russia... China is blazing a trail in renewables because it has no oil reserves to lean on. Granted, they're flexing their muscles in the Asian region to lay claim to oil reserves, as well, but they're not putting all their fish in one basket. |
Quote:
|
Renewable energy is free from fossil fuel carbon. That is not the same as carbon free. This is basic stuff.
Renewable energy doesn't consume any fuel, so it is pollution free. And it is essentially infinite - it will last as long as the sun does. Land based wind is the lowest cost way to make electricity, and solar PV is nearly as low. With proper distribution, and with other renewable sources, and some storage, renewable energy is much more dependable than conventional sources. |
Quote:
Your ROI of 150 years is also absurd, because many "green" technologies have much shorter payback periods. Solar electricity can have a payback of 10-20 years. It's mostly a free market that is adopting these changes. World councils would be comprised of self-interested people like Trump and Clinton, which would be a disaster. Besides that, no world council will ever tell me what car to drive or what lightbulb to use. Scientists are good at making observations, not making policy. They don't know the economic impact of anything they might propose. The opposite statement, that the free market always does what is right for the planet is also false. We clearly need regulation to protect us from The Tragedy of the Commons. My point is that "always" or "never" statements are rarely true. |
Quote:
. Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project . |
Quote:
|
I like how the liberals want these crazy climate change and environmental laws.
But look at what they have created from them selves. If you look at a list of the most air polluted cities California owns the top 5 or 6 spots on the list. Out of a list of the top 20 most air pollutes cities most of them have been under Democrat control for years. And they think they know what's best for the environment, HA! |
Quote:
https://www.factom.com/ https://www.ethereum.org/ |
Quote:
Solutions Project The true cost of nuclear is only now coming due, with the first 5 plants beginning to be decommissioned. What are we going to do with the nuclear waste? Who will pay for that? |
Because tax payers are paying all of wind installation cost. Mid American Energy's CEO was asked on the radio after announcing a 3.6 billion dollar wind farm and stated that it cost them nothing, tax payer cover it all. Simon Conway WHO 1040 radio interview, probably could find the clip on face book.
|
Quote:
Now it looks like the tax payers will pay for disposal. If the waste were recycled the user would pay for it. Originally this problem did not exist, it was created. |
Quote:
How can the Powers that Be depopulate the planet without a War on Carbon? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That rabbit-hole is pretty darned deep. Sure you wouldn\'t rather talk about the Sekrut Space Program? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
This guy is sharp. Too bad he went dark a few years ago. Do the math.
. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ . https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/ . |
Bucky went dark in 1989. :( If the trajectory had altered in 1970, the year he estimated humankind first had the intellectual capital to survive, we\'d be in a different state today.
As it is, those ROI estimates from 2011 are being superceded by things like foil roll-to-roll-manufactured solar cells. OTOH, his Synergetics describes the ground rules for nano-scale structures. People will be studying it whole decades from now. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com