Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

Were you under the impression that wasn't a dumb question? Because it was.

Your problem is a lack of understanding of how small actions add up to large actions. Small children are taught about how raindrops add up to oceans, but you seem to have missed that lesson.

 

A farly neutral piece, focusing on the data.

There were no appeals to emotion about India, just neutral statements of fact. I suspect you're displaying cognitive bias. You want to believe that someone disagreeing with you is using emotion instead of reason, so that's what you read into everything.

Which are?

Seems accurate. It's a projection, but the article very clearly states that, states the specific conditions of the projection, and points out various actions that can be taken to mitigate the harm so that the projection doesn't come to happen.

 

Based on this post, I will just have to assume you failed the classes where they explained the difference between climate and weather? It seems the only logical reason for a post so far out of reality.

 

Mann used proxy data and tied it to actual data to get his stupid hockey stick

 

He didn't say it couldn't be done. He said it wouldn't be easy, and at the end he advocated immediate major effort in all types of renewable power, not just wind and solar.

He also focused strongly on energy conservation as being the best way for individuals to help.

So, he sounded just like the rational people here.

 

So? That's normal, as we don't have thermometer data back past a certain date. We do have period when proxies and thermometers overlap, which allows calibration of the proxies.

 

I am pleased you enjoyed the video presentation.Notice he did not say the solution is to tax us nor hand control to Government nor some of your neighbors.

 

Dude, I am doing something. I’m complaining that society as a whole isn’t yet. We’re wasting resources. We have solutions, nobody wants them.

 

Who is we ??? You claim to have read the entire Longhurst book ??

Cook's paper is a hoax. That's clearly been demonstrated.

 

How many small actions must be done to add up to a large action ?? And how much will these large actions reduce the rate of global warming ?? This is basic stuff but no alarmists seem to be able to answer basic questions fundamental to a cost benefit analysis which determine whether such actions are worth the cost.

 

So we regress midevil and use 800 year old windmill technology and run around naked hunting buffalo living in tee pees is that what your suggestion is to the answer?

 

Define significantly then. How many trees will need to be planted to reduce the rate of warming by 0.1 degree Centigrade in terms of the climate sensitivity to CO2.

A very small percentage of people do not acknowledge that global warming is occurring. But again there is no quantification of anything coming from the alarmists. And indeed the economic analyses that do consider the costs and benefits of global warming indicate that it is beneficial at least for the next ~ 3 degrees C. This will take at least 100 years using the so-called consensus value of 3 degrees C. The factor which pushes the costs over the benefits in the increased costs of air conditioning. You have the sources for these analyses.

 

I see. Multiple studies ... published in the same peer-reviewed journals whose editors selected the papers that the "consensus" is based on...

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

GARBAGE. There's nothing political about it, don't be ridiculous. It's a plain fact. The LIA was the coldest period in ~8Ky, maybe since the Younger Dryas 12Kya. The notion that the climate would not recover to temperatures more typical of the Holocene after such an unusual cold spell is grossly unscientific.

 

Nope. Flat false. Not one single person who understands climate is at all concerned that CO2 from fossil fuel consumption could cause a significant global temperature increase.

Utter garbage. Talk about conspiracy theories...

 

So 60 years ago..Big Coal understood that fossil fuels were causing Global Warming

35 years ago Big Oil put out papers that admitted it

And Deniers still be denying

 

NOW you trust big oil. Fascinating.

 

What papers are those in which Big Coal and Oil admitted that human CO2 emissions were the only cause of global warming ??

 

The selectiveness of the alarmists is breathtaking.

 

I couldn’t find anything making this claim or supporting it.

The first thing I think about when presented with a ‘theory’ (not quite the right word but for lack of a better one) is think about where it came from and what supports it. Are they experts in the field? Do they have evidence that is fact checked, peer reviewed? Or does it come from someone who is targeting non-experts and has a political agenda? Peer review isn’t a cure all by any means, but especially for anything controversial, it’s probably a bare minimum. When targeting non-experts (of which I am absolutely one), you can pretty much tell any story you want and make it seem believable unless it is checked and held accountable to people who fully understand all of the details, complications, and nuances of the subject. To a 10th century dane, thor’s hammer sounds like a much more plausible explanation for thunder than the actual scientific one which requires knowledge of a ton of other scientific subjects.

I did find several studies (that are at least published and peer reviewed) that claim we are heading for a cooling period.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2013GL057877
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.21.5.437
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

However, all of these are about 5 years old, and the actual measurements since then don’t look good for their predictions

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6825/pdf

Also, these don’t agree:
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B/abstract
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2007.0348
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_le08200o.pdf

I couldn’t find any evidence for any dire consequences of what could have been slight natural cooling. I did find several claiming possible benefits of the warming.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01430.x - Some plants in some latitudes benefit from increased CO2
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~vecy/LitSurvey/Mendelsohn.06.pdf - Richest countries may benefit in some possible (but not all) scenarios (depending on severity of the change). However, at the expense of poorer countries who always suffer.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140714102016/http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/archives/2007/hpr1907.pdf- Winter deaths will decrease (but other types of deaths will increase)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/297/5586/1490.summary - Northwest passage will be clearer for shipping.
https://mafiadoc.com/zhou-et-al-200...limate-research_5a22b2621723dd2d571c2af9.html - Some vegetation in some areas of the world may be experiencing some greening.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2006.1955 - Some marine life in the arctic is thriving (although some is declining)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/02/0912376107 - Climate change may have contributed to increased biomass in some forests. (maybe)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09210 - Marmots have increased in size.

But, there’s more downsides:

https://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract - Temperature increase significantly impacts rice yields.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf - Forests are burning up
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031764 - Colorado river is likely drying up.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033390 - Australian river basin is likely drying up.
https://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short - Extreme heat tends to cause a lot more deaths than extreme cold.
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/...ract?sid=511111d6-a7df-4e55-843d-a751fb821c5a – Humans may not be able to survive in some regions we now live in. (And most areas we live in at higher estimates)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0409:BAPSOC>2.0.CO;2 – Mosquitos are thriving and spreading more disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480488/ - Allergens are thriving.
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12395.abstract- Some water sources in the arctic drying up
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-007-0278-3 - leech going extinct
http://www.ryanphotographic.com/Ryan_&_Ryan_2006_pp43-57.pdf - Some species losing ability to reproduce.
https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...an&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT – Oxygen poor areas in ocean are increasing
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5913/447 - Trees are dying at a faster rate
https://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full?ck=nck – Some vegetation will likely die off.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06777 - Pine beetles are thriving, killing trees
http://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/Veron et al Coral reef crisis CO2 MPB 2009.pdf – Large scale coral die off
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/894.abstract Lizard species going extinct
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdf - People running out of water.
https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/JuneICICLE.pdf - Alaska infrastructure costs increased by billions
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org...0REPLACEM1Change0and0Sea0Level.pdf?sequence=1 – Millions of people displaced

And I ran out of steam, but you get the idea. CO2 may be good for tree leaves, but it doesn’t matter when they are starved of water, infested with parasites, and on fire.

Clearly, we are already experiencing the consequences and not really doing anything about it. Of course, many of these consequences are going to be irreversible

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704

There is some optimism for carbon recapture,



but obviously a person shouldn’t ignore their health hoping for a miracle cure.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

And.. I had other points to make, and this took way too much time to dig into, and I forgot a lot of them, and I’m tired lol.

 

Here’s what you do when you are totally and hopelessly wrong about something, it is something most people don’t know anything about, and you are incredibly rich and powerful.

Create a bunch of stories that sound ok if you don’t know anything about the subject. Spread them around as much as possible.

Cast all factual evidence against you as more evidence of the conspiracy. In the same vein, anybody who actually knows about the subject is then part of the conspiracy as well.

Now, without any accountability, you are free to make up whatever story you want.

If possible, tie your side to a political identity so that a significant number of people will never question you no matter what.

Now, your non-expert and non-fact checked stories have as much power as actual peer reviewed stories subject to actual fact checking (politically, not scientifically. You already know you can’t win on science).

Now, you get people on both sides arguing over your nonsense stories, and you don’t even have to really address the real science.

 

Here's more than 50 of them
https://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/313/5789/940.full.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031764
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033390
https://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/...ract?sid=511111d6-a7df-4e55-843d-a751fb821c5a
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0409:BAPSOC>2.0.CO;2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480488/
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12395.abstract
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-007-0278-3
http://www.ryanphotographic.com/Ryan_&_Ryan_2006_pp43-57.pdf
https://science.sciencemag.org/cont...an&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5913/447
https://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144.full?ck=nck
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06777
http://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/Veron et al Coral reef crisis CO2 MPB 2009.pdf
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/894.abstract
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdf
https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/JuneICICLE.pdf
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org...0REPLACEM1Change0and0Sea0Level.pdf?sequence=1

 

Lol, somehow you thought my opinion of the science was based on the actual scientists doing actual science? I kinda figured (and hoped) it would be something like that too.

 

Well, it seems so, doesn’t it?

Hold on there good sir. I just go where science takes me. I don’t “want” to believe anything.

So, on to India. How do we know this is an appeal to emotion? Because the malnutrition in India is mostly caused by a factor independent of nutrient density. If we follow logic based on the premise of decreased nutrient density harming Indians, we would say increasing density would help with the problem, right? Well, this is where they are counting on your ignorance. And I’m not using the term ignorance in a negative way. Nobody can know everything. But they are able to slip a false premise right in there, and because we have compassion triggered by the emotional appeal, it’s undetected.

Malnutrition in India is rampant and has remained so even though caloric and nutritional metrics have increased. Why? Because everyone craps all over their neighborhood. The helminths, hepatitis, dysentery, etc. negate nutritional approaches to eliminating malnutrition. Nutrient density at these scales is not even a factor worth considering in the current situation.

So, what if we eliminated unsanitary conditions? That would eliminate the false premise, right? Well, that one. But it leaves another. The elephant in the room now is the assumption, even admitted to in the research, that amounts of food consumed will remain static with the 550 ppm CO2 conditions. All calculations in my linked article are based on this erroneous parameter. At 550 ppm CO2 rice yields increase by about 25% on average, depending of course on variety, cropping system, and soil quality. So, in areas unlike India that have malnutrition based on low food volume, rice grown at increased CO2 levels will provide more overall nutritional availability, not less. Their excuse for their calculations is lame. There is good research to rely on as far as yields and hungry people are going to eat available food. At the very least, they could have run two sets of calculations. And remember, this research is pretty new. I’ve been around agriculture and crop breeding/genetic modification long enough to know it won’t take long for someone to figure out how to mitigate or eliminate the nutrient density problem.

So, what are we left with? Either the people drawing conclusions here are out of their league on the science and facts (incompetent), or they are intentionally misleading you. I don’t like either option. While the underlying science is good as far as we can tell, until they start drawing conclusions based on static consumption, the end product to the consumer of the “science” is hot garbage.

I could go on, but if your interested, you can figure this stuff out on your own. Most of us here have areas of expertise. It isn’t difficult to apply your personal knowledge of the world to subjects like this and spot the problems.

Oh no. Homey don’ play dat game. You claimed to be able to spot stupidity and fraud from deniers (of which I am not incidentally, but I understand your need of a strawman and you aren’t the first to need one) so to back up that claim you are going to have to spot some of the same in my linked article.

Yep. “Seems” accurate. And that’s all 99% of people care about.

 

Thank you

 

We experiencing no adverse consequences of global warming.