Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

Analog thermometers lack the precision to declare the world is warming/cooling by the degree it is claimed to be warming today. That graph relies heavily on computer models to fill in the blanks and smooth out the rough edges. Models that are still missing a lot of data, especially on clouds.


http://press.cern/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change

The measured sensitivity of aerosol formation to amines came as a surprise, and points to a potentially significant climate cooling mechanism. Moreover, since amine scrubbing is likely to become an important technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled power plants, this effect is likely to rise in future.

That article stresses that the effect of cosmic radiation on the climate is still largely unknown.

 

[SK-1]

More scandal... XD
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.
And they made up much of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
The US has NOAA’s best data, and almost half it is also fake.

This date in 1934 may have been the hottest in US history. The map below shows actual temperatures, not the “heat index.” Almost two-thirds of the US was over 100F on July 21, 1934 – with temperatures of 115 in Missouri and South Dakota, and 113 in Minnesota.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The U.S. coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought — why this is terrifying

The prediction of more, stronger tropical storms hasn't panned out. In fact, the reverse has proven true at this point.

More scandal... XD
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.
And they made up much of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
The US has NOAA’s best data, and almost half it is also fake.

This date in 1934 may have been the hottest in US history. The map below shows actual temperatures, not the “heat index.” Almost two-thirds of the US was over 100F on July 21, 1934 – with temperatures of 115 in Missouri and South Dakota, and 113 in Minnesota.
View attachment 77147

That was the dustbowl, wasn't it? Or not long after anyway.

 

[carex]

very simple you make people believe global warming is happening and justify the so called water prices as well as human killing...if you then convert it to say hydrogen related products available from maybe water it will still be as expensive or even more expensive than petrol or diesel cause you have the buy new stuff for that too.
Humanity will suffer until they be more educated and stop fighting .... today they can take money and go against their own people without thinking twice that one day maybe 10years later the things they are being part of if achieved will kill his family every damm second

 

[Ahhzz]

very simple you make people believe global warming is happening and justify the so called water prices as well as human killing...if you then convert it to say hydrogen related products available from maybe water it will still be as expensive or even more expensive than petrol or diesel cause you have the buy new stuff for that too.
Humanity will suffer until they be more educated and stop fighting .... today they can take money and go against their own people without thinking twice that one day maybe 10years later the things they are being part of if achieved will kill his family every damm second

Joined just to say something like "global warming justifies the human killing".....

 

[AphexDreamer]

Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here?

So one can look at the "facts" of both sides?
Or is this an unreasonable feat?

 

[dorsetknob]

Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Is it possible to get an unbiased summary of the two opposing sides here?

?

Yes.



Global warming is a direct consequence of natural cycles of the sun slightly exaggerated by man.



BOOM !!!!

 

[Assimilator]

More scandal... XD
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/
NOAA claims global temperatures are the hottest ever, based on some rather spectacular junk science. NOAA doesn’t actually have any temperature data over most of the land surface.
And they made up much of their southern hemisphere ocean data.
The US has NOAA’s best data, and almost half it is also fake.

This date in 1934 may have been the hottest in US history. The map below shows actual temperatures, not the “heat index.” Almost two-thirds of the US was over 100F on July 21, 1934 – with temperatures of 115 in Missouri and South Dakota, and 113 in Minnesota.
View attachment 77147

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

In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6] Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8] Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9] and Fox News Channel host Steve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[10] who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[11] Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[12]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this. Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out."[13]

Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."

tl;dr Steve Goddard is a crank, you're a crank, and the majority of this thread is utter bulls**t.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I blame @qubit

 

[dorsetknob]

I Blame R-T-B
He answered @qubit in post 2

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

He enjoys global warming i reckon

 

[dorsetknob]

frogs View of CO2 Carbon Credits

 

[SK-1]

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



tl;dr Steve Goddard is a crank, you're a crank, and the majority of this thread is utter bulls**t.

So It's Goddards fault 1936 was the hottest year on record. Got it.

 

[Caring1]

So It's Goddards fault 1936 was the hottest year on record. Got it.

On Earth as an overall record?
Not in my country, there were below average regions, and above average regions, overall it was an average year.

 

[R-T-B]

He enjoys global warming i reckon

View attachment 77954

My air conditioner's general inability to work and the increasingly high temperatures in the coastal states beg to differ.

Also, it's 95 tomorrow in my state. I'm going to die.

 

[Nobody99]

People don't get that weather is not the same as climate and that in the long term the warming that is happening is only going to be steeper because of the chain reactions like the escape of methane from permafrost. You don't have to even look at the sensor data you just have to look at the land and how it changes overtime, you can't restore Arctic ice and you can't return gas released from earth. You don't require sensor data when all you need is to look at the environmental changes and what they mean.

And if you want to blame someone for these conditions, you know who makes the laws.

 

[AphexDreamer]

What's the point of the debate? To blame the natural disasters on us vs nature?

Id imagine those arguing that human caused gcc is real are doing it to encourage limiting emissions and encourage other environmentally friendly practice while those saying it's not are simply trying to reduce spending/taxes and other economical factors?

GCC or not pollution is real and nonrenewable energy is costly and limited so we should all be wanting to switch over to renewable and if it consequently helps mitigate human caused gcc great. Those non debate issues alone should be worth exiting the burning of fossil fuels or at least with limiting it as much as possible.

http://thesolutionsproject.org

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nonrenewable energy is generally a lot cheaper than renewable, and I mean a lot. Coal is pretty much the cheapest and most plentiful there is but it has been made cost prohibitive by taxes, fines, and fees. Those laws and penalties have made natural gas surge in the last decade to the point of almost taking over 1st position from coal. Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it's like replacing lung cancer with asthma.

Renewables have grown (like a few percentage points versus double-digits of natural gas) but the cost of investment versus return on investment is very lopsided. Almost all renewables are a function of surface area which translates to land rent and where electricity is most needed, the land is also valuable (Las Vegas being the outlier). It effectively cancels itself out without subsidies to tip the balance. Remove all of the subsidies and most of them won't be built anymore.

The only near-term solution is nuclear and, the huge irony here is that your conservative, "meh" on ACC types are in favor of it while your liberal, "ACC is real" types are against it (generally, always exceptions). Nuclear energy is making a come back but when you look at the projections, it is a whimper, not a roar. To get away from fossil fuels, we need a roar. Case in point: China is going to add a lot more capacity in coal than they are in anything else, including nuclear. If that trend doesn't change, well, the air be getting dirtier, never mind the atmospheric carbon. And remember, coal exhaust is carcinogenic unless it has been scrubbed.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Nonrenewable energy is generally a lot cheaper than renewable, and I mean a lot. Coal is pretty much the cheapest and most plentiful there is but it has been made cost prohibitive by taxes, fines, and fees. Those laws and penalties have made natural gas surge in the last decade to the point of almost taking over 1st position from coal. Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it's like replacing one form of lung cancer with another.

Renewables have grown (like a few percentage points versus double-digits of natural gas) but the cost of investment versus return on investment is very lopsided. Almost all renewables are a function of surface area which translates to land rent and where electricity is most needed, the land is also valuable (Las Vegas being the outlier). It effectively cancels itself out without subsidies to tip the balance. Remove all of the subsidies and most of them won't be built anymore.

The only near-term solution is nuclear and, the huge irony here is that your conservative, "meh" on ACC types are in favor of it while your liberal, "AAC is real" types are against it (generally, always exceptions). Nuclear energy is making a come back but when you look at the projections, it a whimper, not a roar. To get away from fossil fuels, we need a roar. Case in point: China is going to add a lot more capacity in coal than they are in anything else, including nuclear. If that trend doesn't change, well, the air be getting dirtier, never mind the atmospheric carbon. And remember, coal exhaust is carcinogenic unless it has been scrubbed.

Long term renewable pays out. The switch will be the hardest and most costly but once the infrastructure is in place the long term effects will be overwhelmingly positive.

If you look at that link I posted they have a unique plan per state to get the job done.

There isn't even a need for nuclear. Although I'd much prefer it over the burning of fossil fuels with something like thorium reactors, renewable works we just need a consciousness shift.

China scares me because it shows just how bad people are willing to let things get and still be complacent. They'd rather buy bottled clean air then fight for or demand for change and we are no different.

 

[Ahhzz]

What's the point of the debate? To blame the natural disasters on us vs nature?

Id imagine those arguing that human caused gcc is real are doing it to encourage limiting emissions and encourage other environmentally friendly practice while those saying it's not are simply trying to reduce spending/taxes and other economical factors?

GCC or not pollution is real and nonrenewable energy is costly and limited so we should all be wanting to switch over to renewable and if it consequently helps mitigate human caused gcc great. Those non debate issues alone should be worth exiting the burning of fossil fuels or at least with limiting it as much as possible.

http://thesolutionsproject.org

Excuse me sir, you may see the doorman for your exit!! There will be no such thing as logic introduced here!! We simply want to prove the other wrong!!

 

[AphexDreamer]

On another note, the idea of a scandal of such epic proportions by scientists around the world is very difficult to reconcile.

What would motivate such a global and overwhelming majority of scientists to perpetuate such a scandal?

Is this the same rational flat earth believers go through to justify their belief the earth is flat despite a global consensus and concrete evidence suggesting the contrary?

 

[BiggieShady]

I can't remember when I wrote on paper last time ... it was ages ago, when did that transition happen
Similar will happen with energy, very very slowly phasing out dirtiest forms.
For electricity in my country it's mostly hydro power, then fuels then wind and solar ... they are phasing out fuels and pushing with wind turbines lately

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Long term renewable pays out. The switch will be the hardest and most costly but once the infrastructure is in place the long term effects will be overwhelmingly positive.

If you look at that link I posted they have a unique plan per state to get the job done.

There isn't even a need for nuclear. Although I'd much prefer it over the burning of fossil fuels with something like thorium reactors, renewable works we just need a consciousness shift.

China scares me because it shows just how bad people are willing to let things get and still be complacent. They'd rather buy bottled clean air then fight for or demand for change and we are no different.

We've been over this many times in this very thread. I'll sum it up briefly: whenever a power company is looking to build a solar power plant, the first question they ask themselves is "how far is it to a natural gas pipeline?" Why, because "green" is not available 24/7 yet electricity demand is 24/7. You cannot have one without the other. For every MW you add of "renewable" you need equal capacity in nonrenewable (e.g. 500MW solar plant needs a 500MW gas turbine). Why natural gas? A cloud covers the panels, it can turn in a matter of minutes to fill in the gap and go off when the cloud passes.

Their "project" clearly hasn't gone under the scrutiny of electrical engineers. It just isn't feasible without a huge investment in energy storage which is a very expensive and finite thing.

Add on top of that the costly maintenance and short lifespan of these things. Power generation would mirror our other infrastructure where they nature destroys them faster than we can fix them. This is the path to economic ruin, not growth.

Nuclear has provided ~20% of the USA's power since the 1980s, despite the moratorium on new facilities. Hell, nuclear is so valuable today, the oldest (1973) and weakest (476 MW) nuclear power plant in the USA was literally surrounded by water in 2011 was retrofitted to return to operation in 2013. They wouldn't do that if there was any better alternative.

China's growth demands electricity and they won't be the last. India, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. are also surging and their need of electricity will follow.

I can't remember when I wrote on paper last time ... it was ages ago, when did that transition happen
Similar will happen with energy, very very slowly phasing out dirtiest forms.
For electricity in my country it's mostly hydro power, then fuels then wind and solar ... they are phasing out fuels and pushing with wind turbines lately
View attachment 78233

It's pretty clear your country is importing a lot of electricity. And note how low renewables are compared to the rest: hardly noteworthy.

What would motivate such a global and overwhelming majority of scientists to perpetuate such a scandal?

Because the proposed solutions are economically devastating. The reasonable solutions (like nuclear) are largely ignored. If a country like the USA changed over to a predominantly nuclear base energy generation, our carbon footprint would fall by over 60%. Like I said, we need a "roar" but we have a "whimper."

I think the status quo will largely prevail (the most growth coming from natural gas, not renewables) until fusion power becomes a reality.

 

[AphexDreamer]

We've been over this many times in this very thread. I'll sum it up briefly: whenever a power company is looking to build a solar power plant, the first question they ask themselves is "how far is it to a natural gas pipeline?" Why, because "green" is not available 24/7 yet electricity demand is 24/7. You cannot have one without the other. For every MW you add of "renewable" you need equal capacity in nonrenewable (e.g. 500MW solar plant needs a 500MW gas turbine). Why natural gas? A cloud covers the panels, it can turn in a matter of minutes to fill in the gap and go off when the cloud passes.

Their "project" clearly hasn't gone under the scrutiny of electrical engineers. It just isn't feasible without a huge investment in energy storage which is a very expensive and finite thing.

Add on top of that the costly maintenance and short lifespan of these things. Power generation would mirror our other infrastructure where they nature destroys them faster than we can fix them. This is the path to economic ruin, not growth.

Nuclear has provided ~20% of the USA's power since the 1980s, despite the moratorium on new facilities. Hell, nuclear is so valuable today, the oldest (1973) and weakest (476 MW) nuclear power plant in the USA was literally surrounded by water in 2011 was retrofitted to return to operation in 2013. They wouldn't do that if there was any better alternative.

China's growth demands electricity and they won't be the last. India, Brazil, Nigeria, etc. are also surging and their need of electricity will follow.


It's pretty clear your country is importing a lot of electricity. And note how low renewables are compared to the rest: hardly noteworthy.


Because the proposed solutions are economically devastating. The reasonable solutions (like nuclear) are largely ignored. If a country like the USA changed over to a predominantly nuclear base energy generation, our carbon footprint would fall by over 60%. Like I said, we need a "roar" but we have a "whimper."

I think the status quo will largely prevail (the most growth coming from natural gas, not renewables) until fusion power becomes a reality.

I take it you are assuming strictly solar? This is not the case there at least several different way per state of achieving renewable energy aside from solar that work any time of day.

The technology exists and isn't an economic detriment, we just need the political and social will to go through with it.
http://www.nap.edu/read/12619/chapter/1