Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bringiton, Sep 27, 2019.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have.
     
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s even more hilarious. ^^^
     
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://qz.com/1341155/nine-countri...-combustion-engines-none-have-a-law-to-do-so/

    These governments are signalling to the world that they need to move to zero emission vehicles to meet their climate and air quality goals".

    It's the last bit, namely maintaining "air quality" by removal of poisonous gases and carcinogenic particulates caused by burning fossil fuels, that requires action ASAP (even before the CO2/climate issue is considered).

    The good news is we have the resources to transit from the filthy fossil industry to clean green, funded by central bank deposit creation (rather than by deposit creation in private banks)

    In effect, a world bank created for the purpose can fund the transition, because an almost unlimited quantity of resources will still remain for development by the private sector, after the transition (see MMT).

    [Only recalcitrant economists mired in their obsolete monetarist neoliberalism will be shouting "we can't afford it"....]

    And energy will be MUCH cheaper, since the fuel is sunshine and wind (backed by pumped hydro). Advanced nuclear might play a limited role in the transition.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These governments will literally go bankrupt destroying the lives of their citizens.
     
  5. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I specifically asked for plausible yet unverified factors that may contribute. How you make the jump from that to me requiring a standards of proof equivalent to ruling out demon possession as a cause of disease, I struggle with. Nothing wrong with such inquiry. Hygiene and sanitation clearly and demonstrably work, while the supposed benefit of reducing CO2 output or facing dire consequences is not quite as clear to me, or probably to anyone for that matter. Germs can be observed under a microscope and agents that kill germs have been shown to cure and prevent disease. The results speak for themselves. Washing hands was never an expensive undertaking that could have much negative consequences, even before the germ theory of disease was firmly established. Am I wrong?

    A more scientific sounding claim than "the science is settled" would be "we cannot explain it with the well understood known factors, therefore it's best to assume humans are the cause, as a matter of precaution and practicality", and that is assuming the consequences of human CO2 emissions on the climate are necessarily net negative (what about non-climate effects of CO2 emissions?). Anything else seems to me to be more politics than science, which may or may not be necessary to prevent potential negative consequences, but that doesn't mean it can be called "settled science", can it? Calling anything but the heat trapping effects of CO2 (which I'm just going to assume is just as settled as the existence of germs) "settled science" seems unscientific, no? The door should be left a bit more open.

    What aspects of the "we have to reduce CO2 emissions or face dire consequences" theory are just as settled as the heat trapping effects of CO2? That the climate is currently warming? That a warming climate is net negative for humans? That the non-climate effects of CO2 are net negative for humans?
     
  6. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Thank you for the reply. I haven't been called anything yet, as I haven't participated much. I'm very resistant to such labels anyways. I myself am fairly good at blending out personal attacks. I care more about the validity of the claims themselves. "Climate change" being used as a general term for the human caused changes to our planet through CO2 emissions with supposed negative consequences is something I'm going to consider pure propaganda for now, no matter how it's use originated. I've known since I was a small child that the climate changes. I'm of course not saying that such brazen terminology automatically reduces the validity of the claims.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  7. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you are still committed to the "flat earth" view of macroeconomics, namely, that sovereign fiat currency issuing governments can go "bankrupt", just like households (ie, you and me, who are users of the currency, and must pay our debt by the due date).

    They can't (except in exceptional circumstances)...but I forgive you for still being deluded, because it also took a long time for scientists to prove to people that the earth was round, in complete opposition to their lived experience....
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The earth is not round - it is spherical.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They do actively research those events plus the many others in the paleoclimate record. Keep in mind that CO2 is not the only thing that modulates the climate so it is not expected that it should be the primary contributor to every climatic change event.
     
  10. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I believe this because that's what the abundance of evidence says. Scientists have known about the UHI effect for decades. Sea surface temperatures have everything to do with the amount of radiation passing through the atmosphere. Remember, Planck's Law stipulates that bodies at higher temperature have higher radiation fluxes. Also, sea surface temperatures are intimately linked with the air temperature above. In fact, the two temperatures are coupled with the magnitude being at least an order of magnitude higher than that for land.
     
  11. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sea surface temperatures (and the air temperature above) are dependent on ocean currents both horizontal and vertical. The temperature has nothing to do with re radiation from greenhouse gases. Read the free reference written by an oceanographer.
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not been a contributor to any of the previous 9 warming events all of which are similar (some greater and some lesser in terms of heating rate and maximum temperature) to our current warming period. And yet today alarmists ask us to believe that all of our current warming is due to CO2 increase.
     
  13. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree @gottzilla . There is only one fundament of the science one needs to know and understand. Anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide is ever increasing. It will remain in the atmosphere for thousands and thousands of years. Meaning, any CO2 emissions, as small as it may be, will still be increasing the atmospheric concentrations. CO2 emissions are not limited to only burning fossil fuels, land use also play a large role in the process. Everyone should sit back and think about that for a bit.

    Hopefully, everyone has come to the realization that mankind will never stop emitting co2 unless we completely dismantle our modern society. Even our so called green sources of energy require large amounts of fossil fuels and emissions of CO2. The construction of solar panels requires heavy mining, heavy transportation, processing of ores, and the manufacturing of the panels themselves, all of which will emit a significant amount of carbon dioxide.

    Conservation, carbon taxes, or any other schemes that will be devised will not prevent whatever change there may be to the climate in the future.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  14. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which warming events are we talking about specifically?
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. SSTs are dependent on ocean currents. But that's not the only thing that modulates SSTs. The ocean readily absorbs IR radiation. And according to Wild et al 2013 the downward flux is 342 W/m^2 total. That is a huge amount of ingress energy. The ocean also readily absorbs shortwave radiation which is about 161 W/m^2 total. Over the last several decades the ocean absorbed about 90% of the energy imbalance in the climate system. Latent and sensible heat fluxes also play a role as does cryosphere/hydrosphere coupling.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  16. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What imbalance in the climate system ??

    And you have just made my point on the SST.
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Medieval, Roman, Minoan, and the previous six. Alley - 2004.
     
  18. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for conceding your ignorance of macroeconomics.
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay.
     
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    +0.6 W/m^2 (or more) is the imbalance at the surface. Most of this imbalance is taken up by the hydrosphere which accounts for about 90%. The atmosphere, cryosphere, and top few meters of the lithosphere account for the remaining 10%.

    I thought your point was that SSTs are not effected by the radiation from greenhouse gases?
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, yeah. CO2 concentrations were relatively stable during most of the holocene so why should we expect CO2 to be dominant contributor to temperature changes during these eras?

    My point is that CO2 isn't the only thing that modulates the climate. The climate is modulated by the net effect of ALL climate forcing agents. Different agents dominate in different eras depending on their magnitude of modulation.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Energy is always balanced.

    They aren’t. They are dependent on ocean currents.

    Have you read the free book I linked to ?? If not why not ???
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would anyone assume CO2 is dominating in the current warm period ??
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Exactly. The imbalance at the surface is +0.6 W/m^2 while that at TOA is -0.6 W/m^2. When you put a thermal barrier in a system one side experiences a positive perturbation while the other side experiences a negative perturbation until a new equilibrium established. This is in perfect accordance with the 1LOT.

    Seriously? You're claiming that the ocean's do not absorb infrared radiation?

    If you somehow got the idea that water does not strongly absorb infrared radiation from this book then I don't want to read that book and neither should you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because unlike the rest of the holocene the modern era is characterized by a significant increase in CO2 concentration. And this isn't assumed. It is backed up by the abundance of evidence spanning a broad swath of scientific disciplines.
     

Share This Page