What do we do about Climate Change

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jul 10, 2023.

  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,204
    Likes Received:
    11,893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironically, your second cite is Talking Points Memo, which is a……BLOG.

    SMH.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2023
    Jack Hays likes this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
    Backlash to climate policies is growing
    Opinion by Henry Olsen
    If proponents of climate policies thought this year’s scorching summer temperatures and extreme weather events would propel the world to embrace rapid action to lower greenhouse gas emissions, they were sorely mistaken. If there is to be any hope that governments might address this issue, they will need a new strategy.

    Around the world, nations are choosing to prioritize economic growth and national interest over climate policy. That’s perhaps unsurprising for poor or developing countries, such as India or Indonesia, whose living standards remain far below those found in the West. But it’s also true of the economic powerhouse of China, which — despite its large investments in renewable energy — is still dramatically increasing approvals for coal-fired electricity plants.

    Even more alarming for the climate activist community should be the backlash to climate policies in Western Europe. There’s no major area in the world where policymakers are more aligned with green objectives than there, yet popular pressure in nation after nation is forcing governments to curtail measures designed to quickly progress toward net-zero carbon emissions. . . .
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This thread is of course based on a false premise.
    New Study: 1900-2010 Global Warming So Uncertain Any Rate Or Magnitude Conclusion ‘Impossible’
    By Kenneth Richard on 24. July 2023

    Share this...
    “The compilation of land- and sea-surface [thermometer] uncertainty yield a 1900-2010 global air-temperature record anomaly of 0.86 ± 1.92°C (2 σ), which renders impossible any conclusion regarding the rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1850 or earlier.” – Dr. Patrick Frank (2023)
    The global surface air temperature record is so contaminated by systematic error (due to solar irradiance, wind speed, albedo reflectance, thermometer physical inadequacies, drift…) that is impossible to distinguish the contaminated from the valid temperatures.

    The built-in ± 1.92°C “range of ignorance” in estimating the global temperature changes since 1900 cannot be reduced by averaging, as the errors are clearly not randomly distributed, but instead strongly related to contaminating environmental factors.

    A summarizing estimate of the global temperature change since 1900, including the range of ignorance due to error, indicates the 30-year trend was 1.82°C per century from 1971-2000, but 0.0°C per century during 1981-2010, and 1.23°C per century from 1911-1940.

    “For SSTs, the available bucket and engine-intake field calibrations show that shipboard SST measurement errors are, likewise, not random. The uncertainties attached to bucket SSTs, 2σ = ±0.4°C and engine-intake SSTs 2σ = ±2°C…”

    “Each of the engine-intake calibrations yielded a bias and uncertainty of 0.3 ±1.2°C (1σ), which obviates accuracy.”

    “The magnitude of the SST error mean itself remains unknown.”

    “The results indicated that a shipboard bucket seawater sample will not accurately convey the physically true sea-surface temperature unless three conditions are simultaneously true: (1) the thermocline is absent; (2) the vessel is heading into the wind; and (3) the mixing layer extends well below the depth of the keel.”

    [​IMG]

    Image Source: Frank, 2023[​IMG]
    Image Source: Frank, 2023
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    47,362
    Likes Received:
    21,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you mumbling about? I have made NO claim whatsoever about the EPA. You did! You claimed you were asked to give up your RIGHTS. When I pointed out that you giving up any rights will NOT have any effect (as explained on the OP of this thread), you started babbling something about the EPA but never said WHAT right they made you give up to address Climate Change.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2023
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The IPCC concedes there's no extreme weather climate crisis.
    Substack post by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

    ". . . . The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

    • River floods

    • Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods

    • Landslides

    • Drought (all types)

    • Severe wind storms

    • Tropical cyclones

    • Sand and dust storms

    • Heavy snowfall and ice storms

    • Hail

    • Snow avalanche

    • Coastal flooding

    • Marine heat waves
    Furthermore, the emergence of a climate change signal is not expected under the extreme RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 for any of these phenomena, except heavy precipitation and pluvial floods and that with only medium confidence. Since we know that RCP8.5 is extreme and implausible, that means that there would even less confidence in emergence under a more plausible upper bound, like RCP4.5

    The IPCC concludes that, to date, the signal of climate change has emerged in extreme heat and cold spells. The IPCC states:

    An increase in heat extremes has emerged or will emerge in the coming three decades in most land regions (high confidence) (Chapter 11; King et al., 2015; Seneviratne and Hauser, 2020), relative to the pre-industrial period, as found by testing significance of differences in distributions of yearly temperature maxima in simulated 20-year periods. In tropical regions, wherever observed changes can be established with statistical significance, and in most mid-latitude regions, there is high confidence that hot and cold extremes have emerged in the historical period, but only medium confidence elsewhere.

    Clearly, with the exception perhaps of only extreme heat, the IPCC is badly out of step with today’s apocalyptic zeitgeist. Maybe that is why no one mentions what the IPCC actually says on extreme events. It may also help to explain why a recent paper that arrives at conclusions perfectly consistent with the IPCC is now being retracted with no claims of error or misconduct. . . . "
     
  7. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    81,812
    Likes Received:
    108,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought some folks might find this interesting. 2 summers ago we didn't have a single day reach 100 degrees, right now we've had about 45 days over 100.

    What NASA and the European Space Agency are admitting but the media are failing to report about our current heat wave

    The current heat wave is being relentlessly blamed on increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but there is a much more plausible explanation, one that is virtually endorsed by two of the world’s leading scientific organizations. It turns out that levels of water vapor in the atmosphere have dramatically increased over the last year-and-a-half, and water vapor is well recognized as a greenhouse gas, whose heightened presence leads to higher temperatures, a mechanism that dwarfs any effect CO2 may have.

    So, why has atmospheric water vapor increased so dramatically? Because of a historic, gigantic volcanic eruption last year that I – probably along with you -- had never heard of. The mass media ignored it because it took place 490 feet underwater in the South Pacific. Don’t take it from me, take it from NASA (and please do follow the link to see time lapse satellite imagery of the underwater eruption and subsequent plume of gasses and water injected into the atmosphere):

    https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www...ng_to_report_about_our_current_heat_wave.html
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wasting Time with Climate Science?
    Kip Hansen
    Here I ask a simple question. Are we all wasting our time with climate science? Reading about it, writing about it, worrying about it, fighting about it, arguing about it. . . .

    I am speaking of the nonsense one reads and hears from NPR, PBS, BBC, NBC, AP, CNN, Reuters, ABC, the NY Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post – many of whom have openly joined themselves into propaganda cabals ( and this one) dedicated to spreading misleading information about climate and climate change. [A new one has just been announced: GRIST and AP. ] Even when a media organization is not directly associated with one of these collaborative misinformation outlets, their editors and journalists have to face the wrath of those that are – there are few working journalists willing to fight the tide on climate alarmism.

    Even the IPCC-boosting Pielke Jr. has been blasting the media for repeating absolutely false narratives on extreme weather — the very same media that repeats endlessly the mindboggling crazy pronouncements of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres — “the era of global boiling has arrived.”

    CLINTEL, has just published an extremely valuable book, “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC“, widely available, in softcover and eBook formats. The book examines the IPCC’s AR6 and documents biases and errors in the Working Group 1 (Scientific Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. [Disclosure: I contributed one of the chapters – thus have a conflict of interest.]

    We see the forked-tongued enemy. A two-pronged approach. First, the underlying science is slightly warped, slightly biased, misleadingly reported in the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) WG1 and WG2. A lot of this is simple confirmation bias and forced-consensus biasing. The truth in is there, but one needs to dodge the rhetoric and look only at the data itself, which is mostly correct. And then, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPMs) wildly misrepresent what the science sections have said and transmogrify it into something barely recognizable.

    From the SPMs, the politicians, media moguls, the Davos Crowd, the Green-New-Dealers, the Great Reset-ers, turn the SPM political opinions into outright lies and give the media propaganda cabals their marching orders. . . .
     
    557 likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Real World Costs Of Backing Up Weather-Dependent Electricity Generation With Battery Storage
    August 08, 2023/ Francis Menton
    [​IMG]

    • A recurring question at this blog has been, how do the world’s politicians plan to provide reliable electricity without fossil fuels? Country after country, and state after state, have announced grand plans for what they call “Net Zero” electricity generation, universally accompanied by schemes for massive build-outs of wind and solar generation facilities. But what is the strategy for the calm nights, or for the sometimes long periods at the coldest times of the winter when both wind and sun produce near zero electricity for days or even weeks on end?

    • When pressed, the answer given is generally “batteries” or “storage.” That answer might appear plausible before you start to think about it quantitatively. To introduce some quantitative thinking into the situation, last December I had a Report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation titled “The Energy Storage Conundrum.”

    • That Report discussed several calculations of how much energy storage would be required to get various jurisdictions through a year with only wind and/or solar generation and only batteries for back-up, with fossil fuels excluded from the mix. The number are truly breathtaking: for California and Germany, approximately 25,000 GWh of storage to make it through a year; for the continental U.S., approximately 233,000 GWh of storage to make it through a year. At a wildly optimistic assumption of $100/kWh for storage, this would price out at $2.5 trillion for California or Germany, $23.3 trillion for the U.S. — equal or greater than the entire GDP of the jurisdiction. At more realistic assumptions of $300 - 500/kWh for battery storage, you would be looking at 3 to 5 times GDP for one round of batteries, which would then need replacement every few years.

    • But even these numbers wildly understate the real world costs of storage that would be needed. Here’s why.
    READ MORE
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,185
    Likes Received:
    22,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Winter Cold, Darkness Kill, While Summer Heat And Sun Save Lives Data Clearly Show
    By P Gosselin on 11. August 2023

    Share this...
    Cold and stupid policies are the real killers, not heat

    German data from Bestattungen.de (Funerals.de) show that far more people die from cold winter weather than they do from hot summer weather

    Lately in Germany there’s been a coordinated disinformation campaign by policymakers and the media. all aimed at getting people to believe that summer heat is the real killer. And so, during heat waves, governments should declare states of emergency and usher restrictions, which could entail cancelling large outdoor events like festivals and sports matches, driving bans and lockdowns.

    It’s all about saving thousands of lives and ensuring your safety, they (falsely) claim! And never mind that the mean summer temperature in Germany is under a comparatively cool 20°C.

    All the focus on the dangers of summertime warmth seems odd, especially when most of us look forward to this season the most and dread the horrible long winters, a time when people are forced to spend so much time confined inside.

    Winter kills, summer saves lives

    Today I came across a report from Bestattungen.de (Funerals.de), a site that of course would be familiar with the business and statistics of dying. Clearly cold winter temperatures are far more dangerous than warm summer temperatures, according to their data:

    [​IMG]

    Image: Besttatungen.de (translated in the English).

    As the chart shows, mortality is 9.7% above the mean in the dead of winter, February, and is 7.1% below the mean right after Germans have been exposed to 3 summer months of now “deadly heat”. In fact, all the mortal suffering begins to end only once the temperatures finally warm up in April. Of course the report isn’t so recent, but we can rest assured that the mortality behavior hasn’t changed that much.

    The data also suggest how crucial Vitamin D is.

    The data also suggests the power of vitamin D. Fully tanked up on this crucial nutrient, people are much more resistant to infections and disease well into the fall. By mid winter, once vitamin D levels become depleted, far more become prone to disease, many experts say. This is why so many advised taking vitamin D during the COVID “pandemic”.

    The following table shows the ranking, from the most deadly month to the least deadly month:

    [​IMG]

    Source: Bestattungen.de

    Summer saves lives

    Again, the bitter cold months of January and February are the real killers, while the summer months are the real life savers. It’s absolutely idiotic of policymakers to be focused and obsessed on summer heat plans. The only heat plan people need is: Get outside, take off your clothes and enjoy the hot weather! Shade and cold water is all you need to cool off.

    According to Bestattungen.de:

    The German Weather Service sees weather-related factors as the main reasons for the variance in mortality risk. Damp, cold air increases the risk of aggravating existing illnesses. Respiratory diseases in particular can become more severe in the winter months. Heart attacks can also be triggered by the weather.”

    Other factors also include psychological aspects and the lack of daylight and its associated “winter depression” increased melatonin and reduced serotonin.

    We need a “stupid-policy-protection plan”

    We really need to ask ourselves and policymakers: Why is heating fuel being made so expensive when we know that it would save a lot more lives? Stupid government policy is what’s killing people, and not the life-saving German summers.
     
  11. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    81,812
    Likes Received:
    108,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Cow burps, who knew?

    Climate-friendly cows being bred to belch less methane

    WINNIPEG, Manitoba - When Canadian dairy farmer Ben Loewith’s calves are born next spring, they will be among the first in the world to be bred with a specific environmental goal: burping less methane.

    Mr Loewith, a third-generation farmer in Lynden, Ontario, in June started artificially inseminating 107 cows and heifers with the first-to-market bull semen with a low-methane genetic trait.
    .........................
    Burps are the top source of methane emissions from cattle. Semex, the genetics company that sold Mr Loewith the semen, said adoption of the low-methane trait could reduce methane emissions from Canada’s dairy herd by 1.5 per cent annually, and up to 20 per cent-30 per cent by 2050.

    This spring, the company began marketing semen with the methane trait in 80 countries. Early sales include a farm in Britain and dairies in the US and Slovakia, said vice-president Drew Sloan.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/world/climate-friendly-cows-are-being-bred-to-belch-less-methane
     

Share This Page