Climate science denier appointed to top position at NOAA

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   29 posts
Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Wed, Sep 16, 2020 - 07:52am

    #22
    kunga

    kunga

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 26 2017

    Posts: 361

    count placeholder1+

    Climate change or climate manipulation?

New interview at Greg Hunter’s.     usawatchdog.com

Dane Wigington,  Man made Climate Engineering Killing Us All

GeoEngineeringWatch.org

  • Wed, Sep 16, 2020 - 01:16pm

    #23
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 773

    count placeholder4+

    Truth Is Purposefully Obscured

Quercus bicolor wrote:

The climate is incredibly complex.  For example, the ocean – especially the deep ocean – acts as a heat sink that delays warming for many decades.  The nonlinear interactions between all parts of the system – sun, oceans, atmosphere, soil storage, plants, human impacts, other gases such as water vapor and methane are not entirely predictable.

But predictability isn’t the real issue.  The real questions are “What is our best assessment of the risk of severe or catastrophic climate impacts?”, “Does this risk justify action now?”,  “What are the potential costs and benefits of taking action?” and “What other risks are there going forward and how might they interact with climate risks?”

Qb,

I wish it were that simple – just take the best science and go with it. Let’s look at the recent HCQ whitewash, and hopefully you’ll see that it is much more complicated. If you contracted the coronavirus, would you follow the best science based recommendations? Basically, that would be to do nothing until you develop symptoms. Then, they’ll put you in a hospital and intubate you if necessary. (After all, they get so much more money from the government if you get intubated.)

Or, would you use your own knowledge to treat yourself with HCQ or Ivermectin, vitamin D3, and zinc? (I know what I would do.) It’s all these little nagging issues that not only make me mistrustful of government but also fearful. Government has the power to compel me to do things that aren’t in my best interest. Well meaning people who are convinced that the sky is falling are willing to vote to force me into their camp. That’s why I contribute my thoughts here. Hopefully, someone will read my arguments and decide to investigate the facts with an open mind. Granted, it’s just so much easier to call someone a climate change denier and keep the personal beliefs intact and insulated.

You are worried that we won’t get enough good science about climate change in time to make changes that are warranted. The best science that money can buy strongly points to runaway warming if we don’t act now!!!!! We need to stop driving cars. We need to consume less. We need to borrow more money to rebuild America Green. Shoot, let’s just switch over to MMT and be done with it. Have you considered who benefits (and I don’t mean the pithy “we all benefit”) if America follows this course? davefairtex pointed out that this came up about the same time that we realized we were running out of fossil fuels. The big boyz will always be able to pay whatever price for fueling their private jets. If they convince others not to consume as much, they get more.

I see all these solar panel and wind farm installations when travelling. Well meaning people see that as building a greener America. But is it really? Do these facilities harvest energy when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing? (Wouldn’t it be great if the well meaning people who think this is a good idea would only get solar power during the day and wind power during windy periods? How long do you think they’d be well meaning if they had to personally suffer for their choices?) That means that a redundant backup power system is necessary. Now, we have to pay more for power generation.

So, we waste all this energy building systems that need backup facilities just so we can pretend that we’re “green.” Does that make sense? What I get from your post is that we need to do even more of this … because, science.

Perhaps, it would help to look at this from a longer term perspective than the climate change advocates cherry pick. We know from geology that the earth has periodically gone from ice ages to brief periods of general warmth. This happened well before humans even existed. Because humans weren’t in the mix, there had to be a natural trigger that caused the climate to change so drastically. In other words, it is a natural occurrence.

During the Phanerozoic period, carbon dioxide levels were about 7,000 PPM. I wonder what our best science based models today would predict the temperature would be with this level of carbon dioxide. So, why didn’t we have runaway global warming back then? Isn’t the fear that it would last forever? Why don’t we have runaway warming today?

Here’s a 27 point bullet list from Dr. Roger Higgs, a sedimentologist. His simple modeling applies an 85 year lag to solar-magnetic flux. Since the sun’s recent solar-magnetic flux peaked in 1991, we can expect more global warming until 2075 (regardless of how much fossil fuels we consume.) Bullet #21 should ring with your concerns.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bAr8qdj-aCQ_pWYza3EawTA2up-TOZLjlVXV_2RnmoE/edit

21) Since thermometer records began (1850), sawtooth global warming (Bullet 12) correlates very well with solar-magnetic flux by applying an 85yr lag, attributable to the ocean’s thermal inertia (vast volume, high heat capacity & slow mixing cause slow response to changes in solar-magnetic flux hence cloudiness), grossly underestimated by the IPCC (Bullet 22). Thus Modern Warming is driven ~100% sun, dwarfing any CO2 effect (Bullets 5, 6).

You may conclude that I’m a shill for big Oil. I’m not. I think it is very foolish to use up the earth’s fossil fuels as quickly as we can. I’m not a fan of pollution either. Even if the earth were a hollow ball filled with petroleum, we’d still run out and much sooner than expected because of the exponential function. I personally limit my consumption by choice. I have no delusions that my savings will extend the fossil fuel era. I don’t do it because I’m worried about climate change. I do it because I don’t need to use as much. Why work so hard to earn the money to buy stuff I don’t need?

Grover

  • Thu, Sep 17, 2020 - 01:50pm

    #24
    tbp

    tbp

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 467

    count placeholder3+

    IPCC caught faking climate data already in 2009

You’ve probably heard of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That organization is the premier group trying to understand climate change and what factors determine same. They tweak their models periodically to allow for other factors. Why? Because the current models aren’t able to completely align with past climate data nor accurately predict future climate. The current model, CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6,) finally allows solar and cosmic ray influences on the earth’s climate.

And they were thoroughly exposed as lying criminals in 2009 thanks to a hacker or an internal leak, in the scandal known as ClimateGate, which even The Telegraph agrees is/was “the worst scientific scandal of our generation”. Why would ANYONE ever trust this group ever again?

The real questions are “What is our best assessment of the risk of severe or catastrophic climate impacts?”, “Does this risk justify action now?”, “What are the potential costs and benefits of taking action?” and “What other risks are there going forward and how might they interact with climate risks?”

The real real question is, as Grover pointed out, “How do you determine what our actual best assessment is?”

For one, you stop believing criminals who have been caught lying in other areas, or even in the very same subject matter, as is the case of the IPCC.

  • Thu, Sep 17, 2020 - 02:06pm

    #25
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 773

    count placeholder1+

    The Red Queen’s Race

Quercus bicolor wrote:

We really need to expand the conversation – and find a way to sort the nuggets from the BS in the propaganda coming from both extremes.

Qb,

I agree completely! I’ve been interested in this subject since I first became aware of it. At first, I was like the others who felt intense anxiety about what was to come. What if we could do something about it … but didn’t?

Have you ever thought you knew the reason something happened, but it turns out the real reason was totally different? For instance, I thought my wife first noticed me was because I was just so darn handsome. It turns out that she fell in love with my dog first. I was just the guy holding the leash. The end result is the same – we’re still together – but for different reasons than I assumed.

How much of that erroneous causation goes on in the climate change discussion? Was the 20th century warming primarily caused by solar activity or carbon dioxide concentrations? We still ended up with more warmth. It’s important to know the causative factor so we don’t waste time and energy fighting the wrong demon.

I like to look at extreme scenarios to see how sensitive the analysis should be. So, let’s look at the “do nothing” alternative. Doing nothing means that we don’t change our trajectory. We’ll continue to use up fossil fuels at a prodigious rate, we’ll expand our consumeristic ways, we’ll continue dumping consumer and industrial wastes in any body available, etc. We won’t change a thing. What happens? Eventually, we’ll run out of fossil fuels that power this economic extravaganza. Then, we begin the long slog down the backside of Hubbert’s Peak. It will be ugly.

Now, let’s take the opposite approach and focus on building green, sustainable infrastructure to replace the fossil fuels. What percentage of current fossil fuel usage should be dedicated to this effort? How much can be deployed elsewhere before the populace grumbles about living under the resultant austere conditions? Do you think we could reduce the amount that conventional uses get beyond 10-25%? (Remember that gasoline powered vehicles don’t go too far on electricity, diesel, or compost.) Let’s assume that we’re able to keep the economy humming while we replace 5% per year of the existing vehicles today with electricity powered vehicles. (Frankly, even that meager percentage would be impossible to achieve.) Do we have enough fossil fuels to accomplish the total change? What happens when fossil fuels become dear? The price rises, which squelches economic activity, and we set to a lower level until the amount available can’t supply current activity. In other words, we begin the long slog down the backside of Hubbert’s Peak. It will be ugly.

About the only difference between these two extreme scenarios is that in one you continue to remain anxious that we need to do something, while the other, we did something that didn’t work out. We end up in the same place. I’m pretty sure that any of the less extreme alternatives will end up in the same place.

Do you remember when Cuomo shipped all the Covid patients to nursing homes? Did he think that “nursing homes” implied that they had nurses who can care for individuals? Didn’t he know that the term is more or less a euphemism for somewhat comfortably warehousing people waiting to die? At least, nobody can accuse him of sitting on his hands and doing nothing. Did he know ahead of time what a terrible decision that would be? I doubt it. He just felt the need to act before allowing things to be thought through. He probably felt that he’d catch hell for doing nothing. (I’m just speculating about his motives.)

Just as our monetary system needs exponentially increasing levels of debt to continue working, our economy needs adequate energy to continue working. Machines that are made for one type of energy don’t really function on another form. (Imagine shoveling coal into a jet engine in a similar fashion as was used for railroad steam engines.) How much of the excess energy can be moved to building green and still maintain the economy and debt payback system? How much fossil fuels are still available to be economically mined? Remember that it is excess energy we’re after. In the Red Queen’s race, it’s okay to use up a unit of energy to retrieve a unit of energy. In the real world, that’s a waste of time and effort.

I’ve been wrong about the timing for Hubbert’s Peak (Peak Oil.) That doesn’t mean that Peak Oil theory is completely wrong. The earth is a finite ball that has isolated pockets of fossil fuels. Any fuels extracted and used, are gone. The earth’s fossil fuel generating system doesn’t act fast enough to replace more than a pittance of what we extract. As a result, every day we get one day closer to the end of fossil fuels.

If we really boil the climate change issue down, isn’t that what the advocates are really worried about – the fossil fuel usage?

Grover

  • Thu, Sep 17, 2020 - 08:33pm

    #26

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 404

    count placeholder3+

    Re: The Red Queen’s Race

I’m with you Grover.

The important thing is that we have a predicament:

  • Fossil fuel burning (plus land use changes plus methane and increases in other 3+ atom gases) + feedback effects are leading / will continue to lead to a difficult to predict amount of warming that has at least a slight chance of being catastrophic, but more likely headwind on the project of civilization.
  • We’re running out of fossil fuels, so there is a limit to CO2.

There are numerous ways to deal with this predicament, all of which are challenging to implement and offer at best partial solutions.  These include:

  • Transition to renewables, but this requires cheap, dense storage for transportation and very cheap, less dense storage to balance electric demand.  Furthermore, for various reasons, renewables will be very difficult to scale up.
  • Getting by with less is complementary strategy, but getting people to voluntarily use less energy and have less stuff at scale is a near impossible task.
  • Even with all of this, climate change is only one of a series of converging crises.  Most likely it is not even the largest.  These include habitat loss, topsoil loss, loss of biomass of wild plants and animals, reduction in complexity of ecosystems, long-term toxic pollution, overpopulation, the difficulty in engineering a global, measured response in what amounts to a hugely complex global human culture with no clear nodes where applying a force can influence the whole in a predictable way.
  • There are many interests in this game of mitigating climate change, all with an incomplete understanding of the whole as well as a greater or lesser degree of ulterior motives.

So the whole issue is an intractable mess.  Focusing on it distracts us from more important work like figuring out how we’re going to adapt to the great disruption that is coming in a way that creates a more beautiful and sustainable way of living.

 

  • Fri, Sep 18, 2020 - 01:24pm

    #27
    Grover

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 773

    count placeholder1+

    Climate science denier appointed to top position at NOAA

Quercus bicolor,

I’m glad we can both see that fossil fuels are finite. I agree with your assessment that it will be nearly impossible to get folks to voluntarily use less. Even with draconian government restrictions, the fossil fuels will get used up by the government. As much as can be economically pumped and used will get pumped and used.

I also agree that because of feedback loops, predicting the end result is really a fool’s game. If it got warmer, would methane eating bacteria flourish or falter? How would that impact predictions? What happens if the sun goes to sleep like it did in the Maunder Minimum? We didn’t have excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning back then. The Little Ice Age appeared nearly a century after the Maunder Minimum began and ended nearly a century after the Maunder Minimum ended. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. /sarc.

As far as transition to renewables is concerned, the key is cheap, efficient storage – like you noted. Years ago, I watched a TED Talk with Donald Sadoway. He said that batteries the size of semi trailers could be made of cheap and plentiful materials. He and one of his graduate students formed a company to make these commercially. Here is the website: https://ambri.com/ and a stylized flow of how it works. (I don’t have a financial interest in this company.)

The battery needs to be molten ~500°C. Calcium is a relatively light anode material. Antimony (Sb) is a relatively dense material. Gravity will keep these materials separated. According to the website, the battery is ~80% efficient. That’s comparable to an Edison battery. The inefficiency adds heat to keep the metals molten. If it works at full scale, most renewable’s intermittency can be mitigated somewhat. At least, most of the generated electricity doesn’t get wasted.

I also agree that scaling up renewables is fraught with problems. Ideally, the generation would be close to where it gets consumed. Being opportunists, we’ve already used up the best available sites.

I also agree that there are many interests in the mitigating climate change game. I always wonder what ulterior motive is being hidden. Generally speaking, the Left thinks it is a big deal. The Right doesn’t. They’re both cherry picking data to make their case. If you and I can see that fossil fuels are finite, and any problem society can mitigate by reducing consumption of fossil fuels will soon be moot, why can’t they see it? Are they so blinded by their political ambitions that they won’t open their eyes to reality? I think I answered my own question. That explains the politicians motive, but why do the rank and file (on both sides) go along?

I also agree that the whole issue is an intractable mess! You want to see a way out of this that creates a more beautiful and sustainable way of living. I’ve got a really simple solution: Get rid of the useless eaters. (Please note that I’m not advocating this solution. I find it reprehensible, but I don’t think or act like an “Elite.”)

It used to be that the Elite had the capital to invest, but they needed Labor to build the factories and machines, operate the machines, bring in raw materials, and transport the finished goods to the market. Over time, invention and innovation have improved efficiency (use machines and stored power to produce more product with the same or fewer humans.) With robots, many dangerous processes that humans used to do are now completely performed by machines. Artificial intelligence is just in its beginning phase. Once it becomes more mature, it will take over the white collar professions as much as robotics took over the blue collar jobs.

What do we do with all those previously necessary humans who now are on the dole? Once the top 10% have all the wealth and capability to generate more wealth, what good are the bottom 90%? At this point, the top 10% are the only producers and have increased taxes (that are distributed to the bottom 90%) so the Elite can produce products for the bottom 90% to buy. From what I imagine is an Elite viewpoint, this really doesn’t make sense. Reduce humanity by 90% and the finite resources will last much longer. Things would be much more sustainable for those who remain and likely a lot more beautiful.

I rather doubt that you were envisioning the scenario I concocted. If a great disruption is inevitable, wouldn’t ruthless rulers devise methods to enact ulterior motives? It has happened before.

Grover

  • Fri, Sep 18, 2020 - 02:36pm

    #28

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 404

    count placeholder2+

    batteries and useless eaters

Those batteries have potential, but even with them the grid will probably be insufficient to maintain the status quo – and then there’s the transport issue.  Passenger vehicles will probably need more lithium that we can use.  Driving less and/or shared rides in autonomous vehicles might help (although I shudder a the big brother possibilities it enables).  Heavy trucks, construction equipment, ships and airplanes don’t have a viable solution at this point.

As for ridding the world of useless eaters and providing a hi-end lifestyle with robotics and AI, I agree, it would make sense a bunch of sociopaths at the top.  The technology to accomplish it seems to be coming together too.  I must admit, I’m rooting for the downward slope of Hubbard’s peak, widespread resource shortages and assorted chaos to cause enough of a collapse that AI, robotics and the internet of things are once again out of reach before we get to that.  Of course, collapse would have a different assortment of dystopian issues associated with it.

  • Fri, Sep 18, 2020 - 03:03pm

    #29
    2retired

    2retired

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 20 2020

    Posts: 47

    count placeholder0

    Climate science denier appointed to top position at NOAA

Not to forget, the chief cheerleader of global warming Micheal Mann, was called a fraud, sued for libel, lost, and had to pay costs(https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/). There are several hundred years of oil and gas in Alberta, and more in the arctic (at a slightly higher price). which should allow time for innovation, which is driven by price. Even if European prices for gas come to the US in the very near future, it may create conservation and better energy habits for a long time before anything runs out.

Viewing 8 posts - 21 through 28 (of 28 total)

Login or Register to post comments