Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Of course. That’s my point. You said using history to make points about the present is problematic. Clearly it isn’t in the case of historical rainfall data either that you thought was problematic.

Absolutely. So why your comment about not using history to make points about the present?

LOL. Someone does but not me. Everything I post is backed by peer reviewed studies. You can start your reading here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073601719/

It’s a fact human behavior affects global temps. And local temps. Who said human behavior didn’t?

What are you wanting to adapt to? The world population is growing fastest in the hottest parts of the planet! If temperature is the killer wouldn’t you expect that to not be the case?

Because another poster brought it up out of the blue and I decided to correct the errors in the premise provided. I don’t like arguments in the science forum that are based on demonstrably false information. Sue me!

Why? Because you want me to? I didn’t bring up Pakistan. What do you want to discuss about Manhattan or Florida? As far as NOLA, anyone who thinks climate change is responsible for it being in danger of submersion isn’t informed on facts. Google subsidence. Then tell me how increasing atmospheric CO2 caused it and how reduction in atmospheric CO2 would fix it. Again, people believing something is responsible for problems that isn’t responsible at all. Thanks for the fastball down the middle.

In a lot of places there are views like our Jewish friends have tails. They say many have the view aliens are living amongst us.

So, people have moved because of climate change in the past, right? Didn’t you say that? But you want to prevent it happening in the future? By stopping climate change?

Millions are moving now for reasons unrelated to climate change. I don’t see a lot of fear in the DOD from that. Why?

Cool. Well, no, they are the opposite of cool.

I’m all for local cooling. That’s why I explained earlier how forests and even agricultural plants can and do grow glaciers. And it’s a lot more feasible than reducing atmospheric CO2. All the bluster and fuss and green energy and LED bulbs and look at the smashing success in decreasing atmospheric CO2!



When do you expect to influence glacial melt or growth by addressing global atmospheric CO2?

Who said there isn’t warming on average? Not me! You said glaciers can’t form quickly. They most certainly can. And I’ve shown with peer reviewed science how it can be done! We just have to choose whether we want to use proven effective methods or unproven, unobtainable methods.

 

I apologised to you for being rude.

 

So 557 is right we cannot prove the weather patterns we are now seeing are a result of climate change.
Its taken 30 years of gathering data to persuade the majority that the climate is changing and that its due to man.
I guess now we have to gather data for another 30 years to prove the changes we are now seeing are not just a couple of anomalous years but the result of that climate change we now recognise.
You see you can't prove it and if you can't prove it then it ain't so.
That sounds about right for humans.

 

You have not been rude to me. You have posted copious amounts of misinformation provided to you by others. You care a lot about people and the planet as I do.

I care about science as you know. And science must always be based on evidence. Unfortunately most sources of information on climate are not evidence based. I have tried to disassociate bad sources of information from you personally and direct criticism at those sources. It’s likely obvious to all I have failed miserably on that score.

 

Specific weather was mentioned (and attributed to AGW) and it’s effects on crop yields. Part of that claim has no supporting evidence and the other part has voluminous evidence to the contrary.

The issue isn’t “proof”. The issue is there is NO evidence for the original claims. We should NEVER claim science as basis for actions when there is NO evidence to support the action. Especially when there is evidence the action has an effect like decreasing crop yield and killing more people from the effects of below optimal temperatures.

If we are going to claim science has any involvement in the climate change movement then we must consider all evidence. And not make up evidence that supports personal preference or bias.

We must not ignore the fact climate change has positive impacts on ability to feed people. We must not ignore the fact warming climate will save many lives directly from reduced exposure to below optimal temperatures for humans. We must not ignore the fact many problems people face around the world are not caused by AGW but by other reversible causes. We must not ignore that the carbon cycle can be balanced from both sides of the equation. We must not be so arrogant to suppose the climate today or in 1800 is/was ideal for all humans, the majority of humans, or even us personally as individuals. We must not base our beliefs on what journalists and politicians tell us about climate because we know they are providing disinformation.

 

Everybody does. EVs are technically inferior to good old combustion engine vehicles. By definition less range and less real world utility. It's taken almost 20 years for Tesla to make a small dent in the market (and there have been EVs in general for twice that long). Now with ridiculous government hype and subsidies they're at about a 5% share in the US. Nothing's going to change that for the foreseeable future. Particularly since this war with Russia has highlighted the value of good old fossil fuels.

Of course, you're free to hold your breath until the EV utopia shows up, but I certainly wouldn't.

 

I agree with the above on principle, but we can say more about the specifics, I think.

We do need to pick what objectives we are working on. I'm not ready to pick improvement in Pakistan as the goal, as I don't believe it is within our control to do so for a number of reasons as I've said above.

Also, I don't see evidence of your claims that forestation in Pakistan would be a solution to the climate change that is taking place in Pakistan.

Fossil fuel consumption does deserve attention, because that is a major source of carbon that is affecting how Earth absorbs and retains heat - the source of the climate problem. One can see the signature in climate that came with the advent of fossil fuel driven manufacturing. Also, fossil fuel consumption is something that we can work on both here and in concert with other countries. It is something that we absolutely have the necessary capability. For example, 2/3 of our total consumption of oil is burned for transportation. That is an amount of carbon we are emitting that starts getting in the range of actually making a difference. Today, the cheapest energy we have is in building methods. There is no cheaper energy than insulation and other methods of reducing consumption due to heating requirements.

I don't know what we can accomplish in Pakistan, but what we can do here is fully within our capability and will make a far larger difference than can be made in that country.

But, I'd probably back some actual solid plan that includes helping Pakistan grow trees. I'm NOT opposed to that. I do think there is more justification for working to stop the destruction of South American forests that is taking place.

 

There isn't one auto manufacturer in the world that agrees with any of this.

I'm not so sure you are smarter than the whole world of those for whom this is an issue of survival.

 

No one said there was no evidence. They said as you posted.
Because current trends in extreme rainfall are within past natural variation, it can be difficult to isolate effects on our longer-term rainfall due to human influence by looking only at the observational record. A study using high-resolution climate models predicts that the influence of human-caused climate change will likely not be seen clearly in short-duration (hourly and shorter timescale) extreme rainfall trends in the UK until at least the 2040s for winter and 2080s for summer.
That is to say they are being cautious as they cannot prove what they are seeing is due to AGW.
So when will we know for certain it is due to AGW ? Ten years of data? 20? 30?

So many extreme heat days and still not enough evidence to say its definitely AGW. Not sure how many more extreme weather events, Densest rainfall, Highest wind speeds we have to see before it constitutes proof. Probably too many, probably too late.

 

More cooling, more ice.

Dramatic Cooling And Recent Ice Shelf Advance Over The Antarctic Peninsula
By Kenneth Richard on 3. November 2022

Share this...
Scientists struggle to keep their stories straight regarding the anthropogenic CO2 impact on polar climates.
It is claimed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are responsible for amplifying warming (“polar amplification“) and ice melt in polar climates, consistent with pronouncements pertaining to anthropogenic global warming.

However, Antarctica’s Larsen Ice Shelf station indicates a massive cooling trend, -1.1°C per decade, has been ongoing since the late 1990s (Bozkurt et al., 2020).



Image Source: Bozkurt et al., 2020
About 85% of the East Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet has sustained “uninterrupted advance” since 2003 (Christie et al., 2022).



Image Source: Christie et al., 2022
. . . .

 

I've spent my career as an automotive engineer with a couple major manufacturers. I'm not so sure you have a clue.

Of course the public face of the manufacturers are enthused about whatever they think the government wants to hear. The EPA can literally shut them down on a moments notice if they want. Shut down as in not let another vehicle leave the factory property (not even to load the vehicle on a train on tracks that run through the factory property). Nothing, period. And they've got the most draconian penalty structure in existence that can bankrupt a manufacturer with a nod of their head. Go ahead, look that up and learn something instead of just guessing like usual.

So yeah, they'll raise thier hand and swear fealty if it keeps the government off thier backs, at least until whatever stupid idea it is collapses (again) under it's own weight.

So to clue you in here's what to look for as evidenced by my original alma mater, Ford back in my original hometown. Although you ignorantly slagged them a few posts back, they seem to me to have the best approach to EVs of any of them. First, look at their decision to go from 16 or 17 platforms to only 2 (basically trucks and Mustang) a few years ago. A "platform" is a basic vehicle structure that all the variants are built on. Now look at the 2 EVs they currently offer, F150 Lightning and a Mustang. Both EVs share the platform with incredibly popular and established fossil fuel variants- they just announced another update of Mustangs including a bad ass Cobra continuing a long tradition and trucks have an entire stable of extremely popular light and medium duty trucks if you really don't want an electric truck. They are simply unabashed about offering choice, you want an EV, we'll give it to you, but we aren't scuttling our core business to do it.

And it's difficult to state how important trucks are to Ford. Cars can be the sacrificial lamb to the environmental lunatics, but trucks will remain and get more popular as cars become increasingly useless as family vehicles. If you would have paid attention during the last round of Biden's fuel economy stadards you would have noticed what had the enviro weenies all up in arms- basically truck fuel economy requirements barely moved. Looks like Biden's EPA (and DOT- their standards are simply inverses of each other) couldn't quite bring themselves to show their weak hands that early. Anything that involves work simply can't be done well without internal combustion. Period. It's physics.

And then there's the question of medium duty vehicles (GVWR of 14,000 lbs. or greater). They currently don't have CO2/Fuel Economy standards and never have. And never can. MD and HD engines are regulated seperately from the total vehicle. And the standards for real pollutants (not CO2) are grams per brake horsepower hour (grams per unit of work) NOT grams per mile. Consequently, there's also never been a corresponding CAFE program although Congress mandated that DOT implement one as a part of a spending bill in 2009 (yes, that long ago). There's more about it on the NHTSA website if you actually are interested in learning. And EPA has never regulated CO2 from engines.

The fundamental problem is that CO2 is one of the desired (along with good old H2O) of perfect (real pollutant free) combustion. That conundrum is the death knell for the "global warming" idiocy. There's simply no physical way to get there from here.

So to complete the Ford circle the LD story, the F150, F250, and F350 are under the current light duty CAFE/CO2 requirements. So what happens in 5 years when the Feds propose actually stringent standards that obliterate the usefulness of those vehicles?

Simple. Look up the F450. A bigger medium duty version of the F350 that can't phisically be regulated for Fuel Economy or CO2.

Smart like a fox those guys are. And cheering whatever the enviro Nazis in government demand. Better to live to fight another day...

 

This is total BS. Such shutdowns are rare if ever happening.

Car manufacturers are like other manufacturers - that succeed or fail based on whether people buy their product.

We'll see. Do they have enough batteries for the volume required to make a profit? Do people want their product? Etc.

The problem in the past was that they just failed to provide what customers want.

I think you just proved that it is politics, not physics. And, that has been true for decades.

Other manufacturers easily beat the fuel standards Detroit whined about and defeated with politics. You can't claim physics.

What's your point?

Do you really think it is a shock to the world that Ford and GM have had huge clout in defeating rational pollution standards?

And, your idea that everyone wants a truck is just more ancient American automobile nonsense.

 

As I thought, clueless with sides of arrogance and incredible hubris

 

Sorry if the EPA are all powerful and presumably uncaring so that Ford tremble in their presence. How come the Government have not change fuel economy on trucks?

 

No, Ford's done quite well dealing with the hand all OEMs have been given. That's the point.

Government can't change fuel economy for anything related to work, like an ICE engine separate from a vehicle. Getting more mileage from a car is easy. You're only looking for more miles per gallon. Make the car smaller, less useful, or change the power source to something less suited to work like an EV. EVs thrive in no load situations like driving to work with one person and a briefcase on board.

But when work is the goal, ICE engines function brilliantly under load. Like pulling 80,000 pounds up the interstate. Or hauling 230,000 lbs of timber off a mountain. And ICE engines produce CO2 and water always in predictable fixed amounts. You can look it up on the DOE website.

Government changing fuel economy on engines that are intended for work and not mileage is simply an unsolvable oxymoron of physics.

 

I think you misunderstand the objective. That was to persuade car companies to invest in producing an EV that does work. To get them to a point where they are the first choice.
And they are well on there way, already EV cars (Under no heavy load) are out performing ICE cars and the early range problems a thing of the past.
That you are now only picking faults in their inability to act as work vehicles bears testimony to this.
Give them another 5 years and Electric pickups will be out performing the old ICE ones as well.

 

I stand by what I said.

 

This is wishful thinking. No one today would attempt a long road trip in an EV. And no one would attempt to haul or tow any weight in an EV truck.

 

I’m happy to get into specifics as long as it’s on the science side of the equation and not entirely political or subjective opinions.

I’m only discussing Pakistan because another member brought up flooding there being outside the control of farmers. I pointed out it isn’t out of their control because they had a big hand in causing the floods and have the tools to greatly diminish them. I’m not advocating for any governmental help or anything. I’m just stating climate facts—why there are problems and what the solutions are.

I suggest reading the whole conversation through. I’ve presented solid evidence on black carbon, how much local and regional heating is caused by deforestation, how growing plants cool local temps enough to grow glaciers, etc. If you are not aware of how monsoons form I described that process as well. None of this is my opinion. It’s just me reporting well known facts about soil instability after deforestation, silting of Pakistani canals/dams/natural waterways, interior local heating from lack of transpiration, and results of peer reviewed studies.

I’ll concede if one does not know a lot about how certain weather phenomenon (like monsoons) form, or about the huge effects transpiration have on local heating, or about effects black carbon from deforestation in Pakistan have on glacial melt rates and year round local interior heating, or how silting from deforestation has effected propensity to flood, or how much deforestation effects water infiltration and soil water holding capacity, etc. it’s easy for them to get lost.

Unfortunately most people who are “climate aware” really don’t know much about climate at all. So on a subject like this I have to educate on all the above metrics before even getting to the “meat” of the subject. If people really understood more about climate and the many things that affect it more could be done to help with situations like we see in Pakistan (and other countries suffering like Bangladesh, Madagascar, and even the US). Like with the NOLA example earlier. If journalists etc. were well informed there wouldn’t be the narrative based on a false premise that NOLA is in danger of flooding because of climate change.

It’s very unfortunate fossil fuels are given credit for so much they aren’t and can’t be responsible for. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is just a very small part of climate/climate change. Most seem to think it’s all about fossil fuel carbon. But that’s what they are told to think.

Just for fun, if you had to guess, has there been more carbon added to the cycle from fossil fuels or from destruction of earth’s natural carbon sinks?

I agree wholeheartedly on building methods. Most buildings it seems are designed to be as wasteful of energy as possible. There is room for limitless improvement just with the technology we have.

Pakistani people have to desire a better environment. We can’t force them and neither can their government. Special forces soldiers are sent to protect forests but that’s not sustainable long term or efficient in any way.

Everything we do that is founded on evidence will make some difference. But we aren’t really willing to do anything. We are far too addicted to creature comforts and consumption of any goods/services we can lay hands on. Besides, climate change is advantageous to so many individuals and negatives are so minuscule to the vast majority. Plenty care enough to bloviate but don’t care nearly enough to take personal action.

Well, there is evidence deforestation in the Amazon affects precipitation in the US. And deforestation of those areas has recently reached a tipping point where the forests are destroying themselves, even when humans back off their destruction.

We could help Pakistan with forests or keep sending them aid to help with the results of deforestation (flooding most recently). Fix the problem or apply gauze and tape to an arterial bleed. Afforestation is the only solution though because deforestation caused the problems.

 

Have you ever even been in one?

 

My comments relate to demonstrated performance shortcomings.

 

Please cite a respected science site that supports the notion that forestation is a key method of slowing or stopping Earth's warming.

 

Really, what shortcomings are those?
The 300 mile range between charges ? the gas at $2 a gallon?

 

The 300 mile range is the maximum. Real world likely to be less. And who wants to run to the end? Plus, recharge is an hour of down time.
Hauling/towing cuts range by as much as 60%.

 

Human caused climate change is a myth. Change my mind


My simple premise of this belief is that there has never been an extensive study of all the green house gasses that the earth put out, and comparing that amount to the greenhouse gasses that humans put out.

To what degree to we attribute to climate change?

There is no scientific consensus regarding this.

Compared to what the earth naturally puts out, what humans put out wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket.