Climate Change Report

[Wafflestomper]

Evidence suggests sun entering ‘solar minimum’ stage: reports | Fox News

The article says that NASA scientists don't believe this will cause another ice age, but since experts have been wrong before I'm going to believe that it will. Am I doing this right?

 

[norrislakevol]

This is just a sample from this page:




And it’s a very common theme in these threads. I've seen it dozens of times here.

I ask because, if you don’t believe humans have any impact on this planet in the first place, then it’s difficult to move on to talking solutions. There are several stages of climate denial, and people regularly jump from one to the other:

1. Deny that global warming is occurring
2. Deny that it’s caused by human GHG emissions
3. Deny that it’s a problem
4. Deny that it’s possible to solve

If you’re not arguing any of the above and you just take issue with the solutions we have selected, then we will have at least some level of agreement. I find the actual political discussion about the solutions much more appropriate and interesting than correcting earth science misconceptions. Unfortunately this thread (and about half of Congress) spends most of its time bouncing back and forth between stage 1 and 2 denial so we rarely get deep into those discussions.

We don't need a solution. The leftists need to leave people alone and let everyone live their lives.

 

[Orangeburst]

We don't need a solution. The leftists need to leave people alone and let everyone live their lives.

I saw Velshi on MSNBC yesterday interview a guy taking about social media and shutting down climate change deniers and other "conspiracy" issues. It is very disturbing.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So if the sun is going through a serious cooling period then I’m glad we had all these cars to create greenhouse gases to keep us all from freezing to death

 

[Orangeslice13]

Let’s just hope they weren’t faking their data otherwise we might all be screwed

 

[norrislakevol]

I saw Velshi on MSNBC yesterday interview a guy taking about social media and shutting down climate change deniers and other "conspiracy" issues. It is very disturbing.

Well if you disagree with leftists you are "uneducated", "dangerous", full of "hate speech"....and any other stupid word they can come up with.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Well if you disagree with leftists you are "uneducated", "dangerous", full of "hate speech"....and any other stupid word they can come up with.

Conservatives say similar things about liberals who disagree with them; I'm sure there are multiple instances in this thread alone. For instance:

We will not be ripped off by a bunch of crooks that think up of a ponzi scheme like the Paris Climate Accord. Only really dumb people fall for that, and only really dumb or evil people would want to force us into a poorer economic situation with anything even resembling the Green New deal.

Meanwhile, no one ever changes their mind based on the evidence because they're too busy insulting one another.

 

[BartW]

I am not qualified to debate this issue but if you are expecting to reverse the effects of over 100 years of carbon emissions I have doubts that is possible. Having lived in both China and India I can tell you for sure they are not going to reduce their carbon emissions anytime soon. I heard a similar version of the current global warming when I was in grammar school and also that we would run out of oil by the early 90's. Don't like the word deny, indicates someone does not agree with the truth. That kind of ends the debate.

We don’t need to reverse 100 years of emissions; we need to slow them sufficiently such that ecosystems, agriculture, coastal communities etc. can cope and adapt. Flattening the curve, if you will.

China and India are big polluters, sure, but so are we, and we’ve been doing it at a much higher rate for a much longer time despite having a smaller population. I don’t think we deserve to talk smack about their emissions at least until theirs are higher than ours on a per capita basis. Anyway, pointing fingers and making excuses doesn’t get us anywhere.

 

[LouderVol]

We don’t need to reverse 100 years of emissions; we need to slow them sufficiently such that ecosystems, agriculture, coastal communities etc. can cope and adapt. Flattening the curve, if you will.

China and India are big polluters, sure, but so are we, and we’ve been doing it at a much higher rate for a much longer time despite having a smaller population. I don’t think we deserve to talk smack about their emissions at least until theirs are higher than ours on a per capita basis. Anyway, pointing fingers and making excuses doesn’t get us anywhere.

Isnt that what the money is about? Pointing fingers at the developed nations "needing" to support the less developed nations to a solution that doesnt currently exist yet?

 

[BartW]

Perhaps If the “experts” had not shot their wad the last 35 years falsely predicting so much disaster and end of world BS that changes from decade to decade and actually HAD solutions other than “ban cars, don’t eat meat, give money to us”. People would care and listen more. But alas here we are

You’re conflating several things here. Which experts and which disasters are you talking about? Please be specific. Within that timeframe the main issues anti-environmentalists typically bring up are climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion. If we’re talking strictly climate predictions made by scientists then I’d argue that mainstream temperature projections as documented by the IPCC reports dating back 30 years have been remarkably accurate. We’ve gone into the numbers here not too long ago. Hansen’s projections in his congressional testimony in the late ‘80s were also very good. Exxon’s internal projections in the early ‘80s spot on as well. If anything, mainstream projections have historically underestimated some aspects of climate change, such as the rate of sea level rise and sea ice loss. Yeah you can say “Al Gore” this and “Newsweek” that, but these aren’t scientific experts and certainly don’t always represent the scientific mainstream.

Next, climate scientists aren’t politicians. They all have their own opinions, sure, and a couple are in the public sphere. But it is not on scientists to propose political solutions.

We don't need a solution. The leftists need to leave people alone and let everyone live their lives.

And lastly, I’ll point out again that we don’t need to let the left control the conversation on climate policy. There are palatable solutions put forth by conservative politicians and thinkers in recent years even, but they continue to be drowned out in the current state of political discourse.

I’ve shown support here for a revenue-neutral or revenue-negative carbon tax. Raise taxes on carbon emissions and offset them with tax cuts to payroll and income taxes. Another type of legislation under consideration is a fee and dividend system where the fee is returned directly to the people on a quarterly basis. There has also been the proposal to price carbon in exchange for gutting other environmental regulations. Even cap-and-trade (which probably would have passed late 2000s had Obama not been elected) is a republican idea introduced under the Reagan and Bush administrations that harnessed the power of markets to successfully and efficiently fight lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Surely we can come up with a strategy that is superior to the current patchwork of regulations and subsidies. If conservatives fail to engage this problem seriously, eventually the dems' next trump will pass something truly absurd like AOC’s idea of a Green New Deal. Ironically, refusing to engage on the climate issue for fear of draconian action will eventually lead to precisely that.

I’d love to go policy wonk and discuss the pros and cons of different propositions, but the discussion here rarely scratches the surface. Instead it’s “sunspots are sending us into a ice-age, derrr, science was wrong all along” or some such stupid garbage recycled every few months. Alas, here we are.

/shpiel

 

[BartW]

Here is another article from NASA back in February that sums it up well.

There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'

But how big of an effect might a Grand Solar Minimum have? In terms of climate forcing – a factor that could push the climate in a particular direction – solar scientists estimate it would be about -0.1 W/m2, the same impact of about three years of current carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration growth.

And, because it bears repeating...

It's not the sun!

 

[norrislakevol]

You’re conflating several things here. Which experts and which disasters are you talking about? Please be specific. Within that timeframe the main issues anti-environmentalists typically bring up are climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion. If we’re talking strictly climate predictions made by scientists then I’d argue that mainstream temperature projections as documented by the IPCC reports dating back 30 years have been remarkably accurate. We’ve gone into the numbers here not too long ago. Hansen’s projections in his congressional testimony in the late ‘80s were also very good. Exxon’s internal projections in the early ‘80s spot on as well. If anything, mainstream projections have historically underestimated some aspects of climate change, such as the rate of sea level rise and sea ice loss. Yeah you can say “Al Gore” this and “Newsweek” that, but these aren’t scientific experts and certainly don’t always represent the scientific mainstream.

Next, climate scientists aren’t politicians. They all have their own opinions, sure, and a couple are in the public sphere. But it is not on scientists to propose political solutions.

And lastly, I’ll point out again that we don’t need to let the left control the conversation on climate policy. There are palatable solutions put forth by conservative politicians and thinkers in recent years even, but they continue to be drowned out in the current state of political discourse.

I’ve shown support here for a revenue-neutral or revenue-negative carbon tax. Raise taxes on carbon emissions and offset them with tax cuts to payroll and income taxes. Another type of legislation under consideration is a fee and dividend system where the fee is returned directly to the people on a quarterly basis. There has also been the proposal to price carbon in exchange for gutting other environmental regulations. Even cap-and-trade (which probably would have passed late 2000s had Obama not been elected) is a republican idea introduced under the Reagan and Bush administrations that harnessed the power of markets to successfully and efficiently fight lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Surely we can come up with a strategy that is superior to the current patchwork of regulations and subsidies. If conservatives fail to engage this problem seriously, eventually the dems' next trump will pass something truly absurd like AOC’s idea of a Green New Deal. Ironically, refusing to engage on the climate issue for fear of draconian action will eventually lead to precisely that.

I’d love to go policy wonk and discuss the pros and cons of different propositions, but the discussion here rarely scratches the surface. Instead it’s “sunspots are sending us into a ice-age, derrr, science was wrong all along” or some such stupid garbage recycled every few months. Alas, here we are.

/shpiel

Forcing people to pay more money for an imaginary issue. Yeah, that'll work lol. The Paris climate accord allows companies to pay more money so they can pollute more. Seems as if that is what you are advocating here.

 

[norrislakevol]

Conservatives say similar things about liberals who disagree with them; I'm sure there are multiple instances in this thread alone. For instance:



Meanwhile, no one ever changes their mind based on the evidence because they're too busy insulting one another.

My friend, the garbage climate models are all the evidence you need. They are a disaster. Only a fool would recommend changing our lives based on these.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

My friend, the garbage climate models are all the evidence you need. They are a disaster. Only a fool would recommend changing our lives based on these.

True or false: it’s worth slightly changing our lifestyle in order to provide future generations a chance at a better life.

To me it’s absurd how “fiscally responsible” people are about this, yet are perfectly okay with spending billions and billions of dollars on fighting wars that in the end won’t matter at all.

 

[Wafflestomper]

My friend, the garbage climate models are all the evidence you need. They are a disaster. Only a fool would recommend changing our lives based on these.

Yeah, you said that already. You do know that they vet these models by seeing if they can accurately predict what's already happened, right? Anyway, I know folks who work with earth systems models at ORNL who use the world's fastest supercomputer in their research and I've not gotten the impression they think their research is based on "garbage" models. Perhaps your friend is in the minority in his field?

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Roustabout]

Yeah, you said that already. You do know that they vet these models by seeing if they can accurately predict what's already happened, right? Anyway, I know folks who work with earth systems models at ORNL who use the world's fastest supercomputer in their research and I've not gotten the impression they think their research is based on "garbage" models. Perhaps your friend is in the minority in his field?

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Are those the same people who were going to have their super computer come up with a treatment for Covid? They fell off the face of the earth.

 

[Roustabout]

True or false: it’s worth slightly changing our lifestyle in order to provide future generations a chance at a better life.

To me it’s absurd how “fiscally responsible” people are about this, yet are perfectly okay with spending billions and billions of dollars on fighting wars that in the end won’t matter at all.

Take it up with China and India who thumb their nose at regulations. The US is already buried under mountains of restriction and regulation that inhibits our competition on a global scale. We have no concept how much more things costs because of the layers of laws and restrictions related to protecting the environment.

We’re already sacrificing and paying the price. Our country has essentially abandoned coal despite spending $4 billion to install scrubbers at coal plants. Exhaust emission standards are hurting the reliability of our vehicles. It cost the trucking industry billions in maintenance and downtime. That gets passed on to us.

What is the main thing you think we should be doing that we aren’t doing now?

 

[Roustabout]

Climate change is about control. Just like with the ozone layer problem, we were able to use technology to overcome a problem. Carbon capture is real. The entire green movement is about restriction not solution. When private industry invents something like this that will solve the carbon problem, how much do you hear about it?



The simplest and easy way to remove carbon is by planting more carbon eating trees. How many efforts have you seen to plant more trees? Little if none. That’s because it isn’t really about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the planet.

 

[Rickyvol77]

True or false: it’s worth slightly changing our lifestyle in order to provide future generations a chance at a better life.

To me it’s absurd how “fiscally responsible” people are about this, yet are perfectly okay with spending billions and billions of dollars on fighting wars that in the end won’t matter at all.

Paying extra tax money to the government and corporations will DEFINITELY make this happen

 

[Wafflestomper]

Are those the same people who were going to have their super computer come up with a treatment for Covid? They fell off the face of the earth.

Yes, I'm sure the climate change people are the ones researching a treatment for covid.

 

[LouderVol]

True or false: it’s worth slightly changing our lifestyle in order to provide future generations a chance at a better life.

To me it’s absurd how “fiscally responsible” people are about this, yet are perfectly okay with spending billions and billions of dollars on fighting wars that in the end won’t matter at all.

The issue is how politicized the left has made the issue.

You went straight to your play book of brow beating the right on your high and mighty horse. You never engaged in an actual conversation, which on the subject of green tech I can tell you works. And it takes more than talking at someone one time for it to be an actual conversation. Instead you just said "line up you slobs and do exactly what I tell you uneducated swine. I know better than you, i know how you should live your life. And you must fit neatly into this box I want you to pay for or else you hate the world. Those are the only two options do exactly what I say, how I say it, and when I say, and say thank you. Or you hate the world."

Just read your post, or just about any of the posts in here from the left. They drip with derision and superiority. There is no better way to get Americans not to do something than to tell them they HAVE to do something.

You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you cant sell them to people, your ideas are crap. And you dont even bother trying to sell them.

I deal with it all the time. I love green tech in buildings, to me it's some of the coolest stuff you can have. Plus it helps me not be dependent on the grid. But I know that because I deal with it first hand. To most people they dont have that level of understanding, or experience, and being so dang top down about the whole matter is the worst way the left could go about the matter.

You need fewer white lab coats and politicians pushing this stuff, and more of the base workers. The people who actually live this stuff, who actually work with people. They are the ones who can sell this as the future. Instead you line up every overbearing stuffed shirt you can and look down your noses while making edicts.

The best part is, imo, that all you arseholes, on here or out there pushing the BS. Have no working knowledge of this stuff. Oh this paper says this, or this study says this. Mother truckers I dont give one good damn what your papers say, i care about what the applicable real world side of it is. I cant tell you the number of times i have read the specs and studies on this stuff and laughed at it, because it doesnt match reality. It's a far cry from some study to actually installing, and running, this equipment. You have to match needs and real life situations. And you ivory tower jackanapes just think you can wave your magic wands and everything works as perfectly as your papers say.

 

[Roustabout]

Yes, I'm sure the climate change people are the ones researching a treatment for covid.

Uh, it's the same super computer. They were making early claims that this super computer could come up with a compound that would be a therapeutic for Covid. It was on national news. The story has since fallen by the way side.

 

[Roustabout]

You’re conflating several things here. Which experts and which disasters are you talking about? Please be specific. Within that timeframe the main issues anti-environmentalists typically bring up are climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion. If we’re talking strictly climate predictions made by scientists then I’d argue that mainstream temperature projections as documented by the IPCC reports dating back 30 years have been remarkably accurate. We’ve gone into the numbers here not too long ago. Hansen’s projections in his congressional testimony in the late ‘80s were also very good. Exxon’s internal projections in the early ‘80s spot on as well. If anything, mainstream projections have historically underestimated some aspects of climate change, such as the rate of sea level rise and sea ice loss. Yeah you can say “Al Gore” this and “Newsweek” that, but these aren’t scientific experts and certainly don’t always represent the scientific mainstream.

Next, climate scientists aren’t politicians. They all have their own opinions, sure, and a couple are in the public sphere. But it is not on scientists to propose political solutions.

And lastly, I’ll point out again that we don’t need to let the left control the conversation on climate policy. There are palatable solutions put forth by conservative politicians and thinkers in recent years even, but they continue to be drowned out in the current state of political discourse.

I’ve shown support here for a revenue-neutral or revenue-negative carbon tax. Raise taxes on carbon emissions and offset them with tax cuts to payroll and income taxes. Another type of legislation under consideration is a fee and dividend system where the fee is returned directly to the people on a quarterly basis. There has also been the proposal to price carbon in exchange for gutting other environmental regulations. Even cap-and-trade (which probably would have passed late 2000s had Obama not been elected) is a republican idea introduced under the Reagan and Bush administrations that harnessed the power of markets to successfully and efficiently fight lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Surely we can come up with a strategy that is superior to the current patchwork of regulations and subsidies. If conservatives fail to engage this problem seriously, eventually the dems' next trump will pass something truly absurd like AOC’s idea of a Green New Deal. Ironically, refusing to engage on the climate issue for fear of draconian action will eventually lead to precisely that.

I’d love to go policy wonk and discuss the pros and cons of different propositions, but the discussion here rarely scratches the surface. Instead it’s “sunspots are sending us into a ice-age, derrr, science was wrong all along” or some such stupid garbage recycled every few months. Alas, here we are.

/shpiel

None of that means squat if you can't enforce on China and other large polluters. As long as the climate community believes the data China controls, nothing will change.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

None of that means squat if you can't enforce on China and other large polluters. As long as the climate community believes the data China controls, nothing will change.

We are in the top 5 of carbon emissions. China is awful, yes. But why would we base a decision off of whether or not other countries are doing it? That’s just a defeatist attitude. Why not aim to be the world leader on this? The upfront costs are hard to swallow but It’s far cheaper than the costs in the long run.

 

[LouderVol]

We are in the top 5 of carbon emissions. China is awful, yes. But why would we base a decision off of whether or not other countries are doing it? That’s just a defeatist attitude. Why not aim to be the world leader on this? The upfront costs are hard to swallow but It’s far cheaper than the costs in the long run.

Not really. The upfront numbers require wrecking our economy to fix our issues. Yet alone taking the rest of the world into consideration.