Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Guest Guest_guest_

Global Warming

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

No.

But like Paul Ehrlich they can probably make all the wrong predictions they want--Paul Ehrlich is so unreliable as a prognosticator I wouldn't trust him tell me where the fricking restroom was--and no one in the major media will ever call him (or them) on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egophile, simple answer is the planet has cooled and heated for billions of years. It has been much hotter and much cooler. To suggest Man is responsible for something that has occurred naturally since the planet formed is lunacy.... we have only been here for a mere few seconds of the planetary timeline.

http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

Edited by Jeffrey W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

It looks like far more heat is released into space than predicted or thought.

I keep pointing out (and few listen to me) that we have lots of climate models and little or no climate science. The climate models proposed by the would be gurus of climate are numbers fitted to presuppositions rather than numbers fitted to facts.

The fellow who invented the "hockey stick" obliterated the medieval warming period (that was before the industrial revolution, btw).

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen't matter... either way, men should be free to produce.

You hit upon the solution... only the productive wave of creative human innovation can overcome the obstacles to civilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now rumor has it that the IPCC itself is going to say -- in its next report -- that expected warming is going to be lower than previously estimated. Not just that, but also that at the low increases expected, warming will be a good thing, on balance! End of an era of easy funding for corrupt "scientists"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBC just ran an article with the title: "How Global Warming May Starve Us". It is just one little article in this long-running "Jesus is coming: behave! behave!" scare. One cannot dismiss this as one overly-excited reporter. Let's consider some other headlines:

 

 

Let's assume the science part of the study is good, because that's not the point of this post. if we assume the science is good, the study found that with more CO2, higher yields in certain crops are coupled with less than 10% reductions in zinc and iron per unit (analogous to these being dispersed through the greater output), and these are crops which are not among the top 10 foods for iron or zinc. And when will this be an issue... i.e. in what year do these scientists assume CO2 will reach the levels they used in their experiment? 2050!

 

Consider if any of this is reason for any major concern to people at large. Clearly not: to think this is going to be a major problem is to make the mistake made by people who have believed the "peak oil" scare for decades. Yet, it is not just journalists. NPR interviewed one scientist behind the study, and he was also sounding an alarm, even if not as crazy as the NBC reporter. 

 

I don't even think this is merely about getting more grants to do more research (the team want to go to a tropical country to repeat their tests). I believe it goes beyond that type of motive, and becomes a typical "madness of crowds" phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2014 is likely to be declared the warmest year on record. (It will almost definitely be among the top 3 warmest, with a good chance of being the top.)

 

So, 2015 will probably see a resurgence of the AGW crowd. Pope Francis is planning to issue an encyclical urging action.

 

Fortunately, Congress won't cooperate; Obama might try to do some less formal "deal" of the type he did with China, but with whom? From the look of things, China, Europe, Brazil, and Russia will have more visible issues keeping them occupied. With gas prices down, the motivation to go off crude-oil is lower than it has been in a while.

 

On balance, 2015 promises to be a year when the AGW crowd will ramp up the pressure, but little will be done to accommodate them. In short, things look fine. Also good news: if 2014 turns out to be the warmest year, the next few are likely to be lower rather than higher...further damping enthusiasm if we can get past Obama's term.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very idea that AGW crowd uses a "global temperature anomaly", computed against an arbitrarily established base-line, to claim that the earth is "warmer", is a truly sad indictment of the state of the philosophy of science and mathematics.  And lets not even bring up the "gridding" of temperature data ( i.e. the making-up of temperature data) to determine a "global average".

 

Edit.  Sorry for the excessive use of "scare quotes".  But discussions AGW requires it, since it employs it's own idiolect

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the progress of time undermines the AGW crowd, morphing them into a climate-change crowd  (they're against change, :)) they continue to attack so-called skeptics. It works for them that the public thinks that money from corporations makes scientists advocates of corporations, while somehow far greater sums of money (and entire lifetime careers) based on government money somehow does not influence scientists to tow a political line. Recently, questions were raised about the funding of Dr. Soon. Here's the New York Times making breathless "news" out of plain cloth.

 

Some congressmen sent fishing letters to various organizations, asking for information on funds from the American Institute of Petroleum. Here's a response from CATO.

 

And here is an op-ed by Richard Lindzen (ex-MIT) (denier of the second coming of GW, :)) published by the WSJ, and available without subscription:

"The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics - Richard S. Lindzen (WSJ, Mar 4, 2015)

 

These congressmen don't see the irony in their move. Universities are so tied in to government funding that a letter from congressmen is a clear threat, far more powerful than a few measly millions any corporation can cough up.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In September, a few professors, headed by Jagdish Shukla of George Mason University, wrote a letter asking the Whitehouse to prosecute organizations that have "knowingly deceived" the public about climate change. He suggested using the "anti-racketeering" law (RICO), which has a long history of being used way beyond its original intent. Now, the New York Attorney General is taking up the suggestion, asking Exxon for documents. Presidential candidate Sanders supports this. (Sidenote: Today, President Obama, admitted that he isn't going to allow the Keystone pipeline to be built.)

Climate change has surely become the new religion. When the anti-carb/anti-low-fat crowd was preaching against the government-suggested "food pyramid" nobody had the audacity to ask for their arrest. But, the environment is a far more sacred cow, and advocating anti-establishment views on climate change ("denying" is used in the sense in which "heretic" or "infidel" was used once) might land you in jail.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 New Science Papers Find Climate is Driven by Solar Changes

Published on April 28, 2017

Written by Kenneth Richard

solar-1.jpg?resize=800,426&ssl=1

Earlier this month, the first installment in the accumulating list of hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting a skeptical position on climate change alarm was made available. Included on the list were 38 papers linking climate changes to solar forcing: 38 Sun-Climate Scientific Papers, January-March 2017

Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

First post for a long time - so please bear with me.

I have scanned through the thread and have a different view to others ie climate change hoax vs it being real.

Climate change is simple physics - the well known Greenhouse Effect.   If you continue spewing CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses like methane into the atmosphere eventually the earth must warm.

BUT - and this is a big BUT there are a number of things that need to be taken into account:

1.   The earth is a complex system - predicting when 'catastrophe' will occur, or even if it will lead to problems, has proven so far impossible - models touting doom and gloom 20 years ago did not predict what we now see.   We now have better models of course but we have no idea of their accuracy.  In other words your guess is as good as mine if anything bad will happen before natural advances in technology such as Fusion power fixes it, as much as it can be fixed anyway - see below.

2.  Believe it or not 20% of global warming gasses come from cow flatulence.   Anybody that thinks we can do anything about that is kidding themselves.

3.  Another 20% is from illegal deforestation that the countries it's going on in do not have the resources to stop it.   Again doing anything about that seems unlikely.

4.   The Paris accord simply committed most countries to what they were doing anyway - and combined with 2 and 3 above will not lead to reductions that will avert danger if it is coming before our technology can fix it.

5.  One possible way to reduce greenhouse gasses is going to Nuclear Fission reactors.   We now have reactors that burn older reactors waste as fuel.  Solves two issues in one - reduces gasses and gets rid of noxious nuclear waste at the same time.   But here in Australia the mere mention of nuclear cause most to go into no way mode.   I am a mentor of a site called Physics Forums where many nuclear scientists and engineers post.   I ask them to come on over there to discuss it with the experts and the typical reaction I get is - I prefer to listen to actual scientists.    That's right - they will not discuss the facts with scientists because they want to listen to scientists - amazing.  I say forget it - being scientists when you make a statement they will ask you to back it up with peer reviewed literature not opinion.  For some reason that's the end of the discussion.   Also their scientific knowledge is so bad they do not even know the difference between fusion and fission. You just sit there shaking your head.

Based on the above my view is forget about it - its inevitable but all we can do is trust advances in technology will avert any possible danger.  All this nonsense I hear we are moving to 50% renewable's and other rubbish touted where I live in Aus is simply a waste of money - it will just slow it down - not avert it - that is assuming catastrophe is on the way - which as explained above we do not really know anyway.   Much research is being done into solutions by private enterprise because there is a lot of money to be made eg when Fusion is perfected whoever does it will make a mint.  Really governments do not have to do that much.   

It's all based on emotion - not facts - that IMHO is the real issue.

Thanks

Bill

Edited by William Hobba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say climate change is real, reducing emissions is a good idea. I'd say I've got a theory man-made climate change is a con job akin to Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear'. I think it's ludicrous to suggest stopping making petrol cars at some arbitrary date agreed by some do gooders with no care about the knock on effect for the voters who can't even imagine buying a three year old car let alone buying an electric one. Don't get me wrong I own an old car rather than a hire purchase one by choice.

Sorry I ramble it's what I do. Guess what I'm saying is lasting conservation efforts are worthwhile. A bit of knowledge about the world is a useful thing. A bit of perspective is a very important thing.

And let's just hope the deniers turn out to be right. I'm scared of being wrong but I don't suggest turning the planet into an ash tray even if I don't believe in AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, William Hobba said:

2.  Believe it or not 20% of global warming gasses come from cow flatulence.   Anybody that thinks we can do anything about that is kidding themselves. 

Where did you get the 20% from? I can't imagine it's that much. Half of the global methane emissions come from anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in soils (in wetlands, landfills and rice paddies), not from cows...so, for what you're saying to be true, methane would have to be the main greenhouse gas, not CO2.

As for countering the effects, that's fairly easy: trap carbon in the soil, using regenerative agriculture principles.

Pasture raised animals, when managed properly, regenerate soil incredibly fast. In the past 200 years, the removal of massive amounts of herbivores (most of them ruminants, like cattle), have depleted soils on Earth (in North America and Asia, especially) severely. There's nothing we can do about that, those millions strong buffalo herds that roamed freely across the landscape, chased by wolf packs and migrating tribes, can't coexist with modern human society. But planning the grazing of domesticated herbivores in a way that mimics the movement of wild animals (they moved in massive herds, grazing/trampling the soil bare periodically, adding fertilizer to it as they went, then allowing it long recovery periods) builds soil. It also reduces/eliminates the need for the chemical fertilizers that kill soil biology. Healthy soil has many benefits, but the main two are:

1. It traps a lot of carbon (including methane...read up on how well drained soil acts as a methane sink). Farms that follow regenerative principles have multiplied the organic matter content in their existing soil, and are building deeper soil (healthy soil biology leads to healthier plants, which then send roots down deeper into the ground, expanding the depth of the top soil ... this can also be accelerated, using a keyline plow). The reason individual farmers (who aren't paid to produce less, by the government) want this is because it increases yields, with fewer input costs. The reason why the rest of us want it is because it produces healthier food (not just because it contains fewer harmful substances...also because it's far more nutrient rich) and counteracts global warming.

2. high organic content in soil leads to dramatically higher water retention (again, by an order of magnitude higher, soils go from retaining half an inch of rain per hour to retaining ALL the rain that could possibly fall in an hour, allowing virtually no run-off), which counteracts drought and prevents soil from being washed away into rivers. Drought is the single biggest enemy of modern farmers, followed closely by soil erosion. Coupling soil building with more advanced methods of retaining rain water (like keyline design, developed in Australia) has successfully prevented crop failure due to drought in some very dry places on Earth.

In other words, there's nothing to worry about. Herbivores (for now, mainly cows, but the ideal animal for the job would be the woolly mammoth) have a huge role to play in counteracting both global warming itself, and the purported effects of the combination of global warming and population growth. We will at some point need to move away from growing our meat indoors, though, and let animals out into the ecosystems we're supposedly protecting by not allowing farming on them. Because the removal of herbivores is destroying those ecosystems from the soil up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicky said:

Where did you get the 20% from?

See the following:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

That gives 18% but recently it has been upgraded to 11% more than previously thought:

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/weve-grossly-underestimated-how-much-cow-farts-are-contributing-to-global-warming/

This gives about 20%.

The reason it seems implausible is its mostly methane which is a much worse global warming gas than CO2.  And  that's just cows.  All other animals, including even us, contribute as well - but its not as bad as cows - still its likely higher overall than 20% - but I don't think anyone has published the exact figure.  The main point is its something most don't know about, and we are not likely to be able to do anything about it.  We will have to rely on future technology to somehow manage it - or maybe not - more research is needed.  That's the issue with all this global warming stuff -  we don't really know whether to be worried or its a non issue.   Global weather scientists are much more careful in what they say than the highly vocal alarmists.   Either way I am very confident we can handle whatever the situation is and the alarmists are way off the mark.

I will answer some of your other comments in a separate post after I have cognated on them a bit.

Thanks

Bill

Edited by William Hobba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×