The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Wayward Son on May 30, 2019, 04:34:31 PM

Title: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on May 30, 2019, 04:34:31 PM
Yes, you may still think of it as methane or "natural gas" that heats your water.  But when it is liquefied and exported to Europe, it becomes something more.  Something special.  Something that embodies the ideals and values of our great nation.  A symbol of America to the world.

Yes, it becomes...Freedom Gas! (http://time.com/5597784/freedom-gas-energy-department/)   :)

Because, after all, a fossil fuel that makes money for the oil conglomerates while adding CO2 to our atmosphere and increases global warming/climate change is a perfect symbol for this Administration.  ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on May 30, 2019, 05:28:56 PM
Given the results of our past freedom exports, I'm not sure this is great branding. Also, wasn't this administration supposed to restore respect for America in the world? I don't think it is working...
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on May 30, 2019, 09:10:11 PM
Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

Indeed, far more of the environmental progress that the US made under Obama resulted from increased methane access. It's done more than say Ethanol or any other Kyoto program.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on May 31, 2019, 06:43:44 AM
 it is not that great (https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on May 31, 2019, 07:28:41 AM
Time magazine, ok.   ::)

Going past the propaganda to understand the issue rather than a inee jerk reaction, we find:

Quote
Earlier this month in an interview with reporters in Brussels, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry also referred to “freedom” gas, and told news site Euractiv who that “freedom” was for: Europeans.

Perry said that, after liberating Europe from the Nazis in the 1940s, “the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” adding that, “rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it’s in the form of liquified natural gas.”

So this gas does promote a freedom from dependance on Russia. The phrasing of “freedom gas” is directly targeted at Putin to get under his skin. Admittedly, not the best branding but promting energy independence of the US and its allies is good for the West and does, in fact, promote freedom throughout the western world - which undoubtably is why the left hates it.

Quote
Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe.

US jobs, economic growrh too, Yeah, it really is a perfect symbol for this administration.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 03, 2019, 01:22:37 PM
Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

So fossil methane contributes to global warming even if burned.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 03, 2019, 09:23:19 PM
If we stop murdering the forests and oceans then CO2 is much less of a problem. If we grow the forests and coral reefs back to their pre-human state we could use methane all day and night without a signifiant greenhouse effect
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 07:33:50 AM
While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

If it’s too high, what is the correct atmospheric concentration of CO2?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2019, 02:36:46 PM
Lower
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 02:46:59 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2019, 02:48:06 PM
While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

If it’s too high, what is the correct atmospheric concentration of CO2?

How about not the highest level in the past million years, aka human history?

Preferably back to pre-industrial levels, but I think everyone would settle for simply "not higher than right now". For which, we have to turn to Freedom Panels or Freedom Turbines - not Freedom Gas.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 04, 2019, 02:59:52 PM
I love how those denying the effects of climate change think that asking for an absolute/correct number is some magic way of winning an argument.

Guess what?  Higher concentrations of CO2 than now will mean more cost to adjust/mitigate, more human suffering, more refugees.  Lower concentrations than now will mean lower costs, less suffering, less migration.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2019, 03:12:56 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?
As long as we know how to put our hand on the dial and tune the planet to whatever we DO decide, I'm good. 

We seem to have the "turn up the thermostat" part well under way.  Instead of ringing our hands, I say we pat ourselves on the back for a job half done!  Gotta be prepared for those ice ages too ya know.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 06:00:25 PM
I love how those denying the effects of climate change think that asking for an absolute/correct number is some magic way of winning an argument.

Guess what?  Higher concentrations of CO2 than now will mean more cost to adjust/mitigate, more human suffering, more refugees.  Lower concentrations than now will mean lower costs, less suffering, less migration.

And I love how warmists dodge the question and think it’s some way of being smart.

You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?

Let’s see, it’s roughly 415 ppm today. I know you guys have been freaking out about the end of the world for at least 20 years now claiming it was too high and it was 12 years until the end of the world in 2000. Then, it was about 350 ppm. So 350 ppm is too high. Right? Is that a fair statement?

So if this is scientific, then there must be some ppm in mind that’s the target. If we had a dial and could control it easily, where would we set it so the planet isn’t destroyed in 12 years?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2019, 06:07:57 PM
Quote
You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?
That's because your question implies we know the correct "natural" static amount.  But it's not static.  Use the "denier" logic and apply it to your own question.  For this, whether or not it's natural or man-made doesn't matter. 

The point is right now, the current levels and rate of increase means things are gonna increasingly "suck more" for large swaths of this planet and its inhabitants.  A "globalist" problem we're all gonna have to deal with unless we adopt a siege mentality and hope that enough of the lesser offenders don't decide to punish us because they perceive us as a threat to their lands.  (literally for some as sea levels rise)  :P

The "right amount" is less right now.  A crashing drop to offset the current repercussions of these levels.  That seems a ridiculous hope, so the "realistic amount" is... Less.  Not trying to be smarty pants here.  In fact, it's pretty a fairly K.I.S.S. response.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 04, 2019, 06:28:56 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it. When we cut down rain forests and tear up coral reefs with Chnese fishing guest, we break the process that converts co2 back into O2.

You don't deny the existence of photosynthesis, do you Crunch?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 06:37:45 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 06:42:14 PM
Quote
You say it’s too high but you’ve no idea what the right amount is, apparently not even a remote idea of it. If it too high now, what would not be too high?
That's because your question implies we know the correct "natural" static amount.  But it's not static.  Use the "denier" logic and apply it to your own question.  For this, whether or not it's natural or man-made doesn't matter. 

The point is right now, the current levels and rate of increase means things are gonna increasingly "suck more" for large swaths of this planet and its inhabitants.  A "globalist" problem we're all gonna have to deal with unless we adopt a siege mentality and hope that enough of the lesser offenders don't decide to punish us because they perceive us as a threat to their lands.  (literally for some as sea levels rise)  :P

The "right amount" is less right now.  A crashing drop to offset the current repercussions of these levels.  That seems a ridiculous hope, so the "realistic amount" is... Less.  Not trying to be smarty pants here.  In fact, it's pretty a fairly K.I.S.S. response.

Iget it but it’s not a KISS response, it’s a meaningless one. Is it always going to be “lower”? It doesn’t matter what the level is, it should be lower?

Let’s say we can lower it somehow and avert planetary destruction. What do we have to get toin order to do that? If the answer is always “lower” then you’re effectively saying 0 ppm. Is that the level at which we save the planet?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 06:46:56 PM
The closest to anyone having an idea of what it should be is looking at preindustrial levels as the amoiunt. That was about 280 ppm.

If we could set it, is that what you guys would set it to?

Or lower? For the 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, CO2  fluctuated between about 180 ppm  and 280 ppm. Would 180 ppm be the best CO2 level?

Or is it zero?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 04, 2019, 06:50:09 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?

While you're being silly and irrelevant, What's the total weight of human beings killed by 9/11?

Look, if you think that cutting down Washington and Oregon hardwood old growth forests and selling the wood to China and buying it back as furniture for more money is how we should do business, you think that's sustainable, make an argument. Don't ask dumb questions.

We run into a dead guy with his heart torn out, does Crunch argue that if we can't say what his heart rate would be if he had a heart, then we can't say that tearing his heart out caused his demise?

Think harder, Crunch. I didn't ask you to endorse Kyoto and Paris. Just to stop dodging basic photosynthesis.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 04, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?
 G

While you're being silly and irrelevant, What's the total weight of human beings killed by 9/11?
WUT?
Quote
Look, if you think that cutting down Washington and Oregon hardwood old growth forests and selling the wood to China and buying it back as furniture for more money is how we should do business, you think that's sustainable, make an argument. Don't ask dumb questions.
That’s not what I said or even implied. Don’t just make things up.


Quote
Think harder, Crunch. I didn't ask you to endorse Kyoto and Paris. Just to stop dodging basic photosynthesis.

Ok, so I think you’re in the zero camp. Eliminate all CO2. I mean, what else can I conclude with your bizarre behavior?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 04, 2019, 07:37:20 PM
Quote
Is it always going to be “lower”? It doesn’t matter what the level is, it should be lower?
I don't believe it WILL always be "lower".  I think we'll, barring some apocalyptic event, need "higher!" as well. 

More importantly, MOST importantly, is that somewhere else, we'll likely need the ability to do both.  Goldilocks zone is only gonna get us so far out there in the black.  :P

The objective, rather than ignoring the problem or being all defeatist about it and claiming "not OUR fault!" is to live the lives we want, comfortably in a sustainable way.  I prefer economic and industrial changes to, "well... we COULD engineer a super bug or have a giant war to kill off X% of the population.  THAT might do the trick...

Is 0 ppm where we "save the planet?"  Let's be clear.  The Planet, is gonna survive current trends either way.  It's about saving OUR self-destructive, short sighted, all the modern comfort requiring asses.  Not the planet.

If THAT requires 0 ppm, then we're likely having a huge population die off situation either way.

I just don't get your position.  We don't need to "stop man-made-climate-change", we need the tools to change it in whatever direction we need.

Strike that.  I DO get that the republican position is "We refuse to make economic sacrifices NOW for positive changes down the line."  I just don't get how we as a country, with a government, aren't in a position to say.  Hey, quit trying to murder the future to line your pockets now dicks! 

It doesn't help my mood that the same "side" is also more heavily invested in religions with a, "Well the end times will sort *censored* out either way, so why fret about the future of the planet?"  It's bat*censored* insane to let either type of attitude, or the combination there of set climate policy.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 12:18:02 PM
I don't speak for all republicans in that generalization you just made but I do prefer we approach this scientifically rather than the emotionally laden screeds we see in this thread.

At some point, you were told CO2 levels were too high and had the crap scared out of you with apocalyptic endings if we didn't do something *right now*. Did it never really occur to any of you to ask any questions about this? I mean I know that you're not supposed to question this but it's kind of human nature to be a little curious. If it's too high, there must be some kind of reference to compare it to. If there's not, as it seems you guys believe, then saying it's too high has literally no rational meaning. It's just scare tactics.

Here's some reference points.


The record low ppm's occur at the end of ice ages where the cold has driven CO2 levels down. As the planet warms, CO2 levels rise. Please note the order of events on that - temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. We saw 180 ppm as we exited the little ice age just as the industrial revolution kicked off. Any one of you can find this out if you just have the courage to ask a couple of questions instead of meekly going along (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot).

OK, so, we're at 415 ppm today which is, according to you guys, is the end of the world stuff. So what you're saying is we want to get CO2 levels down as close as we can to a level that would result in the death of plants on a global scale. In fact, we're damn near there already.

So how low do you want to go? How close to the abyss do we need to get to satisfy warmist fears? We sure as hell don't want to go below 180 ppm and I doubt we could even if we wanted to but if you say it should go lower then you really are advocating for the end of life on the planet (maybe some bacteria survive). If your idea is getting around 280 ppm, then you're saying we want to be right at the razor's edge of killing off plant life. You guys really want to stare into the abyss.

The reality is, when we look at history and use some basic science rather than emotion, CO2 levels are catastrophically low. We need it to increase, a lot. Greenhouse operations routinely use CO2 generators to help their plants, routinely pushing CO2 levels to 1000-1500 ppm. Some even go as high as 1800 ppm.

So what should CO2 levels be? I'd say at least 1000 ppm to give us the safety margin we need. 1200 ppm would be even better.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 05, 2019, 12:35:04 PM
I don’t know a single person in real life, and haven’t talked with one online directly who believes the apocalyptic,  “OMG we’re all doomed in 2-3 decades!”  I’m sure there are several who believe that if we continue current trends that long our ability to correct things may never catch up to some cascade effect.
 
It’s “too high” ONLY because we are seeing negative symptoms.  That’s it.  You seem to think there is some magic number we have or need to hit.  Maybe this is a nationalist vs globalist outlook?  It’s not what WE need to hit as a nation.  It’s what the WORLD needs to manage to keep things stable or *gasp* improving for as much of the population as possible.

If sea levels wipe out coastal population centers, or weather systems become more destructive, or we are having massive species die-offs, or major population centers have air that is killing people, or our ability to feed people due to failed or unplanted crops are on the rise…  It’s “too high”. 

The right question to ask is what changes / costs are we willing to accept to improve things?  This isn’t about (or shouldn’t be about) quelling fears or convincing deniers.  It’s about environmental mastery.  Do we really want to just roll the dice on what this dirt ball comes up with once it reaches its own “new normal”?  As do-nothing-ist love to point out, the global climate has changes plenty over its time spinning.  As someone reaping the benefits of the western world… I like what we got now.  If we can make improvements, even better but let’s not make a mess of it and go, “well *censored*, guess it falls into the act-of-god category”.

But you go ahead and nail down that magical number.  And we’ll be all well and good till things start chilling out instead of warming up.  :P
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2019, 12:38:04 PM
I don’t know a single person in real life, and haven’t talked with one online directly who believes the apocalyptic,  “OMG we’re all doomed in 2-3 decades!”  I’m sure there are several who believe that if we continue current trends that long our ability to correct things may never catch up to some cascade effect.

I actually know several IRL people who have posted material just like this, about how we are very near to the tipping point from which there is no return. It's typically not framed as even being 2-3 decades away, but generally has the tenor of "it's almost too late!" Some of the posts seem to even have the premise that it's already too late and who should we blame for it.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 05, 2019, 12:42:55 PM
Out of curiosity.  Let's say the world DID settle on a number and nations voluntarily participated in doing their part to reduce emissions. 

What happens when it's not enough?  What if the big emitters aren't willing to sacrifice THAT much to achieve that goal?  What happens when we feel that some heavy emitter is not doing enough?  Or if they opted out. 

Is the next world war a "war for the fate of the planet"? in which everyone else comes together to destroy enough infrastructure such that their emissions are curbed to where the rest of the world feels they should be?

It's no accident that those best able to apply military might are also the highest emitters... 


So how much wasteland are we willing to accept as long as we are following a NIMBY policy?  How many refugees or how much bloodshed are we willing to tolerate to continue doing nothing (or making token reductions) about it?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 05, 2019, 12:43:38 PM
Just because temperature can have an effect on CO2 levels, this in no way means that there are no other ways to change CO2 levels. It also does not imply that changes in CO2 levels do not themselves have an effect on temperature.  These are two implicit non-sequiturs in his position that Crunch is repeatedly unable to grasp.

Observing that the effects of increased CO2 levels in the current environment will have negative consequences is also not an "emotional" argument, never mind a "screed"; but using such loaded, emotive language does seem to be one technique people use to enable themselves to ignore ideas and facts that inconveniently do not support their positions.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 05, 2019, 12:45:54 PM
I get the defeatist attitude.  The left and the right have their own flavors of it.  But there is a stark difference between "it's already too late" and "we're all gonna die REALLY SOON because of it."  The latter getting a lot of attention lately...  But AFAIK, it's still a fringe opinion.

We MAY be screwed, but anyone in a position to tweet or forward memes is probably not at risk of eminent extinction, nor are their children or grandchildren.*

*With the caveat of extreme life extension tech/medicine."  :)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 05, 2019, 12:50:10 PM
Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2019, 01:01:30 PM
Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

I wasn't addressing this sort of claim, but rather offering a contrast to D.W.'s saying he doesn't actually encounter people making this claim.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 05, 2019, 01:05:24 PM
I guess I live in my own purple state bubble.  ;)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 01:50:45 PM
Just because temperature can have an effect on CO2 levels, this in no way means that there are no other ways to change CO2 levels. It also does not imply that changes in CO2 levels do not themselves have an effect on temperature.  These are two implicit non-sequiturs in his position that Crunch is repeatedly unable to grasp.

Observing that the effects of increased CO2 levels in the current environment will have negative consequences is also not an "emotional" argument, never mind a "screed"; but using such loaded, emotive language does seem to be one technique people use to enable themselves to ignore ideas and facts that inconveniently do not support their positions.

Pretending that increased CO2 levels *only* have negative effects is emotional and not fact based.

 
Fenring, it already is too late to avoid some of the effects and costs, and some effects that are yet to come are already baked into the current CO2 levels - which will continue to accrue even if we were to reduce net CO2 increases to zero immediately. It is also "almost too late" to start doing things to reduce significant future effects not already destined to occur, because turning around complete economies takes time.  It is not, however, too late to do anything that would reduce long term costs.

It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 02:05:00 PM
Out of curiosity.  Let's say the world DID settle on a number and nations voluntarily participated in doing their part to reduce emissions. 

What happens when it's not enough?  What if the big emitters aren't willing to sacrifice THAT much to achieve that goal?  What happens when we feel that some heavy emitter is not doing enough?  Or if they opted out. 

Is the next world war a "war for the fate of the planet"? in which everyone else comes together to destroy enough infrastructure such that their emissions are curbed to where the rest of the world feels they should be?

It's no accident that those best able to apply military might are also the highest emitters... 


So how much wasteland are we willing to accept as long as we are following a NIMBY policy?  How many refugees or how much bloodshed are we willing to tolerate to continue doing nothing (or making token reductions) about it?

That’s a good question, I was wondering that myself.

But first, it’s important to understand there’s a reason the number is always “lower”. Because global warming is not about saving the planet. It’s about control. What these guys want is to tell you how to live your life, what choices you can make, how you speak and even how you think. If they have a number and we hit it, they’d lose that power they so badly crave. So whatever the CO2 level is, it must be lower so they can dictate how you live. That’s all this is about.

So, with that in mind, what will they do to nations that won’t go along? The US is reducing emissions, China and India are not. That’s a threat to the power as normal Americans notice these other countries are not complying and are, in fact, thwarting the US attempts to save the world. What will they do to save their power? History is full of people that achieved power and didn’t want to release it, we know what they do.

How much bloodshed, how much wastelands and refugees are they willing to accept?  Obviously, as much at it takes to get you to submit to their control. No less.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 05, 2019, 02:16:37 PM
Quote
Pretending that increased CO2 levels *only* have negative effects is emotional and not fact based.
Why?  Are the only possible arguments that increased levels of CO2 have no beneficial effects emotional ones?  Also, you realize that nobody here has made any argument about increased CO2 levels having no beneficial effect, right?

As an aside, however, what would those beneficial effects be, and would they offset the costs associated with increased CO2 levels?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 05, 2019, 02:19:23 PM
You write as if you believe 'the other guys' don't want control.   ::)

Spoiler:  Neither side is going to let us live how WE see fit.  I just prefer the side with their eyes set further down the road.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 05, 2019, 02:43:43 PM
Quote
It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.
There's no need to misrepresent: 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 05, 2019, 03:04:33 PM
I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: NobleHunter on June 05, 2019, 03:13:43 PM
Rate of change also matters more than the absolute value. +3C over a millennia is much more tolerable than +3C over a century, even if it stays at +3C for the next 900 years..
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 06:26:51 PM
Quote
It's been too late for 30+ years. It's always 12 years away from ... whatever it is that's going to happen, not sure you guys even know.
There's no need to misrepresent: 
  • AR1 (from IPCC working group 1, in 1990) was talking about a 2C increase over a 35-year period (2025) and a 3C increase by 2100 (with referenced uncertainties and assumptions, of course).
  • Working group 2 in 2001 also made reference to the effects of climate change in 2100, and nothing as early as the 20-teens.
  • AR5 produced in 2014 also focuses on 2100, with no reference to 2025 anymore

OK, let's prove you wrong.  From AP, June 29, 1989: (https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

Quote
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

Now March 28, 2019 (https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm), the UN again:
Quote
Just over a decade is all that remains to stop irreversible damage from climate change, world leaders heard today as the General Assembly opened a high‑level meeting on the relationship between the phenomenon and sustainable development.

How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 06:28:30 PM
You write as if you believe 'the other guys' don't want control.   ::)

Spoiler:  Neither side is going to let us live how WE see fit.  I just prefer the side with their eyes set further down the road.

There are indeed people that want control. I just prefer the side that is trying to win me over with ideas and reason rather than force.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 05, 2019, 06:31:11 PM
I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?

Taxes, is that science? No, it's politics. You're not making a reasonable comparison.

But yeah, you can talk to people and ask them what taxes should be and often get a number. In fact, we set what we think is the perfect number all the time. Sometimes people disagree and there's a debate, taxes get changed to another very precise number. Have you ever done your income taxes? Did they have a precise number for you? You bet they did.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 05, 2019, 09:45:11 PM
How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

Unfortunately Crunch is correct about this part of it. It may or may not be the case that climate science is accurately predicting our doom, but if so the social regime has helped cause it by crying wolf one too many times. I've read stories dating back to the 70's about the end is nigh, from high profile climate sources.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 05, 2019, 10:17:43 PM
Quote
It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away.
Except this is not what you quoted:
Quote
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
The latter quote does NOT mean that the "end of the world" would occur within that ten year period, but that there would be unavoidable effects that would eventually occur if actions to reduce emissions had not been taken by then.  Was what was written hyperbolic? Yes. But Crunch's characterization of the quote is again a non sequitur.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 07:44:40 AM
That change s nothing about my point which you seem hellbent on avoiding.  It’s always a few yeas left to avoid disaster. It has been for 30+ years. Deny that all you want, I’ve supplied the proof.

Your behavior is exactly what one would expect from cult members. Think about that.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2019, 09:23:16 AM
https://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-did-global-warming-slow-down-nineties

Part of the change from 1989 was that we actually took some action, and we improved our models

I'm not sure I'm sold on the precision of these next ten years or it's too late to stop it predictions. What we do know is the longer we wait the more expensive it will be in lives, health, and economic activity.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 06, 2019, 09:45:12 AM
I've noticed the same type of high pressure sales tactic in play as well. Buy now before it's too late. Limited time offer! Call within the next 30 minutes or you'll miss your chance. The same slick tricks used to sell a $20 piece of junk are being used to sell trillion dollar wastes of money in the scam belief that we can keep the climate from changing. The hucksterism involved is just so transparent. The boys and girls who cried wolf.

 "Ocasio-Cortez: "The World Is Going To End In 12 Years If We Don't Address Climate Change"

I'd like to put that to the test. Let's not do anything and see what happens.

This is the same doomsday nonsense we've seen going on for literally thousands of years. I don't want to say it's never been right. I suppose Noah called it. If there was a doomsayer warning about Atlantis I guess he or she was right too. But other than that these people have been wrong over 99.9% of the time.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 06, 2019, 10:41:33 AM
Yeah, like my doctor telling me about the risks of smoking and telling me I should quit. She doesn't *know* I'm going to have a stroke in the next ten years! How do they even know that smoking causes cancer. People who don't smoke also get cancer.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 10:59:11 AM
https://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-did-global-warming-slow-down-nineties

Part of the change from 1989 was that we actually took some action, and we improved our models

I'm not sure I'm sold on the precision of these next ten years or it's too late to stop it predictions. What we do know is the longer we wait the more expensive it will be in lives, health, and economic activity.

We don't know that. You say that. It's just your opinion. People like you have been saying that for decades. Other cults have been saying something like that for hundreds of years. You conflate opinion with fact and use junk science, and sometimes even faked data, to support it.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 06, 2019, 12:59:13 PM
I know there is really very little point, but: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 03:03:35 PM
I know there is really very little point, but: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

There really is little point in mentioning, but https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

The models do indeed get really accurate when you simply adjust the data to fit the model. It's not science but it does support your beliefs so it's all cool.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 06, 2019, 03:48:32 PM
Linking to a 4-year old article that was debunked within 3 days... at least you're consistent.

https://skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 06, 2019, 05:35:41 PM
Watched the mini series Chernobyl. Not sure how accurate everything was however its clear that the world got lucky as the disaster could have been so much worse.
Maybe we will get lucking again....

“The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous,” he tweeted. “The lesson is that lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous.” - Craig Mazin

Of course i guess both sides of the climate debate assumes the other side is doing the lying.  If there was hope in the show its was that after *censored* happens there were those that did what had to be done to limit the damage but wouldn't it have been nice if for once we didn't wait for the *censored* to happen in the first place.

Climate change or not as the population grows and builds in areas of higher climate risk we should be talking about how to better manage that risk. Or is weather related desasters good for the economy?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 05:57:51 PM
Linking to a 4-year old article that was debunked within 3 days... at least you're consistent.

https://skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html

Claiming it was debunked is not debunking. It’s the firdt one I found, how many would it take you?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 06:08:44 PM
Of course i guess both sides of the climate debate assumes the other side is doing the lying.  If there was hope in the show its was that after *censored* happens there were those that did what had to be done to limit the damage but wouldn't it have been nice if for once we didn't wait for the *censored* to happen in the first place.

Ever try to convince a Jehovah’s Witness that carbon dating was accurate? That’s what talking to a warmist is like. The difference is the warmist is more than willing to use force to make you submit to their ideas of how to live. They’ll happily destroy you if you deviate even slightly from their “science” or even question it. Ever notice how they aggressively attack when asked simple questions? Why do you think they do that?

Climate change or not as the population grows and builds in areas of higher climate risk we should be talking about how to better manage that risk. Or is weather related desasters good for the economy?

Weather disasters occurred long before the warmist cult came on the scene. People have always lived in areas where there are weather threats. By the way, have weather disasters increased or decreased in the last decade or so?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 06, 2019, 06:23:57 PM
How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

Unfortunately Crunch is correct about this part of it. It may or may not be the case that climate science is accurately predicting our doom, but if so the social regime has helped cause it by crying wolf one too many times. I've read stories dating back to the 70's about the end is nigh, from high profile climate sources.

I think the word is precision, not accuracy.
Afaik crunchs argument here is akin to denying the holocaust because "about six million" isn't precise enough.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 06:31:06 PM
How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

Unfortunately Crunch is correct about this part of it. It may or may not be the case that climate science is accurately predicting our doom, but if so the social regime has helped cause it by crying wolf one too many times. I've read stories dating back to the 70's about the end is nigh, from high profile climate sources.

I think the word is precision, not accuracy.
Afaik crunchs argument here is akin to denying the holocaust because "about six million" isn't precise enough.

Then you don’t know very much. But you do demonstrate my points quite well so please continue.  ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 06, 2019, 06:58:53 PM
Here’s something to consider.

Quote
According to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, “it is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will exceed the rate observed during 1971–2010 for all Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios due to increases in ocean warming and loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.”

A major prediction is sea levels will rise.  What’s happening?

Quote
The Policy Brief, titled “Global Sea Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data,” authored by Dr. Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. David Legates, professor of climatology in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, is taken from a chapter of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, a report fromthe Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

They found:

Quote
Instead of accelerated sea-level rises, the authors find “the best available data” shows “evidence is lacking for any recent changes in global sea level that lie outside natural variation.” They point out that if the negative effects of the claimed accelerated rise in sea level, such as a loss of surface area, were to be visible anywhere, it would most likely be in the small islands and coral atolls in the Pacific Ocean. However, research indicates many of these islands and atolls are actually increasing in size. Simply, they are “not being inundated by rising seas due to anthropogenic climate change.”

It’s just not happening like they try to scare you with.

How about glaciers? They’re disappearing according to warmists. Are they?

Quote
A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.

The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience.

How bad is it for warmists?

Quote
May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

Look at that, gone in only 11 years! Weird right? Always 10-15 years away. Apparently scientists had a vote and reached consensus that these would disappear on that schedule. But, nature just ain’t cooperating with computer models so they gotta sneak those signs out.

But, never fear, the fear must be maintained:

Quote
The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Future generations? At least they dumped the 12 year fear mongering but now it’s future generations? What, like 10? 20? More?

I’d be willing to believe their global warming theory but it keeps getting things wrong. Over and over again. When scientific theories are contradicted by evidence, the theory is flawed, perhaps fatally so.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2019, 10:09:31 AM
Quote
Claiming it was debunked is not debunking. It’s the firdt one I found, how many would it take you?
The irony here is delicious - in that you somehow thought that linking to a crank article in The Telegraph, penned by a man who also disputes the negative health effects of asbestos, would somehow be convincing to anybody who had not already made up their minds on the topic.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2019, 11:11:40 AM
The irony is the raft of logical fallacy in your response. ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2019, 12:08:28 PM
I'm going to go with NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) on sea level data. The rate of change is 3.3mm per year, a total of about a centimeter since 1993. I don't think a methodology from Gilligan's Island is going to work for that level of precision.

The study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1) actually shows 74% increasing, and 27% decreasing, making it clear that climate change may only sink some of the islands. The other problem here is that the time period for their observations was from 1971-2014. The authors also give many plausible reasons for the growth, none of which involves denying sea level rise.

Quote
Significantly, our results show that islands can persist on reefs under rates of sea-level rise on the order of 3.9 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 over the past four decades (Supplementary Note 2, Supplementary Fig. 3) equating to an approximate total rise of ~0.15 m. This rate is commensurate with projected rates of sea-level rise across the next century under the RCP2.6 scenario mid-point rate of 4.4 mm yr−1 (range 2.8–6.1 mm yr−1)48.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2019, 01:02:23 PM
Quote
The irony is the raft of logical fallacy in your response.
"You keep using that word.  I do not think that word means what you think it means." :)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2019, 01:43:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Crunch:
How about glaciers? They’re disappearing according to warmists. Are they?

Quote
A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.

The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience.
A more complete reading of the study, however, puts that in context:
Quote
NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. But because of what else is happening on the ice sheet, and the overall climate outlook, that’s not necessarily a good thing for global sea level.

That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.
The question is whether Crunch only read, copied and pasted the edited excerpts he sees in the right-wing echo chamber, or whether he consciously misrepresented the study to support his position...
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2019, 03:31:42 PM
So instead of all glaciers melting that proves global warming, it's some will melt and some will grow.  Damn, everything proves your theory.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 07, 2019, 03:37:35 PM
It doesn't "prove the theory".  Of course, one could say that since "the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice", the fact that one of the many Greenland ice sheets is gaining ice is not particularly important - and it is really not evidence against a general warming of the planet as you were trying to argue.

But pointing out that you were misrepresenting the evidence also does show that you were misrepresenting the evidence.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2019, 03:47:31 PM
Binary crunch thinks all glaciers must grow or shrink at an identical rate.

So according to that methodology, the economy is not growing because Louisiana and Connecticut had shrinking growth rates.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 07, 2019, 07:59:32 PM
How is it that you don't know this has been going on for over 30 years? Seriously, you're knee deep in the cult of global warming and don't know it started over 30 years ago telling the same stories it's telling now? It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away. It's literally been like that for over 30 years.

Unfortunately Crunch is correct about this part of it. It may or may not be the case that climate science is accurately predicting our doom, but if so the social regime has helped cause it by crying wolf one too many times. I've read stories dating back to the 70's about the end is nigh, from high profile climate sources.

I think the word is precision, not accuracy.
Afaik crunchs argument here is akin to denying the holocaust because "about six million" isn't precise enough.

Then you don’t know very much. But you do demonstrate my points quite well so please continue.  ::)

Please identify what I said that you claim to be responding to. Because your response is as vague and handwavibg as an 8-ball.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2019, 10:23:56 AM
Quote
It's always the end of the world, just 10 or maybe 15 years away.
Except this is not what you quoted:
Quote
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
The latter quote does NOT mean that the "end of the world" would occur within that ten year period, but that there would be unavoidable effects that would eventually occur if actions to reduce emissions had not been taken by then.  Was what was written hyperbolic? Yes. But Crunch's characterization of the quote is again a non sequitur.

Right, it’s the end of the world in 30 years now!

Quote
A harrowing new climate change report warns we may be on the way to extinction, claiming there is a “high likelihood” human civilization will come to an end by 2050 unless action is taken on greenhouse gas emissions.

The dire paper, which predicts a biblical-like scenario of devastating floods, drought, famine and a breakdown in international order, has been endorsed by the former chief of Australia’s military.

The analysis, published May 30 by Australian think tank the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, calls for a new approach to climate change and paints a bleak picture of the world in 30 years if nothing is done to combat greenhouse emissions.

How bad will it get?

Quote
Meanwhile, 55% of the global population would be subjected to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, “beyond the threshold of human survivability.”

Beyond the threshold of human survivability? Jesus Christ, how hot is that? Looking around there have been high temperatures in the 150’s. So above that. There’s a record of 183 in Port Sudan and they survived so above that too.

So it looks like more than half the planet will spend about a month a year with temperatures exceeding 150 degrees, maybe exceeding 183! Scorching! That’s what you guys are saying is coming.

Won’t go much highe before the rivers and lakes start to boil. Literally.

Quote
North America will suffer from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves and drought — while other places in the world such as the Middle East and West Africa will become unlivable.

I’ve heard of those kinds of weather extremes. Never thought we’d experience them in my lifetime. Wildfires, heatwaves, drought, that’s the stuff of myth.

The entire Middle East and a good chunk of Africa will be so hot it’ll kill every single person there. All of them.

If we don’t dismantle the US economy by 2000, 2005, 2012, 2018, 2025, 2030. Then it’s the end of the world. I’m super serial, end of the world.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2019, 11:02:33 AM
Binary crunch thinks it's either an apocalypse or everything is fine. No room for any other scenario.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 08, 2019, 05:52:54 PM
Do you disagree that report?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2019, 08:44:40 AM
Lets (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/health/birthstrike-climate-change-scn-intl/index.html) see what CNN says just this week

Quote
In 2018, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned the planet only has 11 years to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Are we back to that? So, 2029, it’s game over. No going back.

Quote
Every day that we don't act is another day that more people will die, more species will become extinct and more likely we will be heading to a completely uninhabitable planet.

That’s not me saying that. It’s you guys, it’s warmists. The planet will be uninhabitable.

Quote
Instead, the study suggests society should focus on reducing the carbon footprint we already have and limiting per-capita consumption.

"If everyone consumes the way the US did, we would need another four to six earths," said Meghan Kallman, co-founder of Conceivable Future. "It's not actually about the number of people. It's how those people consume."

Good luck forcing China and India to go along. Speaking of China

Quote
So, should everyone in industrialized countries consider having fewer children, to reduce emissions? It might not be that simple.

A 2014 study concluded that reducing the human population is "not a quick fix for environmental problems." Using models, it found that even a worldwide one-child policy would give a global population of around 7 billion by the end of the century -- much the same as today's population.

Capping human population, there’s a great idea. They’re not saying anyone should be coerced into not having children....not yet:

Quote
In March, US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told her 3 million Instagram followers, "there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult... is it still ok to have children?"

A US congresswoman who many of you think is a genius is asking. What’s your answer?

As we approach the deadline to save the planet in 2000, 2005, 2012, 2017,2023, 2029 and people are not complying sufficiently, should we take up the idea of mass sterilization?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2019, 09:22:14 AM
Watched the mini series Chernobyl. Not sure how accurate everything was however its clear that the world got lucky as the disaster could have been so much worse.
Maybe we will get lucking again....

How surprised are you, end anyone else, that HBO completely misrepresented the radiation impact? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/#d6b2dc3632f6) The series is essentially a propaganda piece for being anti-nuclear power. It consistently depicts things that can’t happen and never happened to make you think how bad it is.

Any ideas why they did that to you?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 09, 2019, 12:48:10 PM
We are living in a time were we can believe nothing. Debate is dead. Dialog is dead. Every one has access to 'all the information' and gets to pick what bests suits their agenda. Everything is a cover-up, everyone is out to get you, fool you, manipulate you.
Maybe its always been this way. ignorance is indeed bliss.

I have little hope for the future.  I used to think that just maybe humanity as a whole might learn better, and learning better do better. But we wont'. We can't help it
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2019, 03:36:25 PM
Quote
This is a point that the creator of “Chernobyl,” Craig Mazin, has stressed. “The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous,” he tweeted. “The lesson is that lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous.”

Representatives of the nuclear industry agree. “Viewers might see the Hollywood treatment and wonder what the relevance is outside the USSR,” writes the Nuclear Energy Institute. “The short answer is: not much.”


Crunch, your own source disagrees with your premise.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2019, 03:39:46 PM
I think what you’re experiencing is something called “anomie”

Quote
Anomie, also spelled anomy, in societies or individuals, a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals.

The term was introduced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his study of suicide. He believed that one type of suicide (anomic) resulted from the breakdown of the social standards necessary for regulating behaviour. When a social system is in a state of anomie, common values and common meanings are no longer understood or accepted, and new values and meanings have not developed. According to Durkheim, such a society produces, in many of its members, psychological states characterized by a sense of futility, lack of purpose, and emotional emptiness and despair. Striving is considered useless, because there is no accepted definition of what is desirable.

Obviously we are going through a breakdown of standards and values where common values are no longer acceptable to a large swath of the population and they strive to replace those values with something else, often deviant. Perhaps reason will win or the emotionally driven people will, we’ll see.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2019, 03:42:23 PM
Quote
This is a point that the creator of “Chernobyl,” Craig Mazin, has stressed. “The lesson of Chernobyl isn’t that modern nuclear power is dangerous,” he tweeted. “The lesson is that lying, arrogance, and suppression of criticism are dangerous.”

Representatives of the nuclear industry agree. “Viewers might see the Hollywood treatment and wonder what the relevance is outside the USSR,” writes the Nuclear Energy Institute. “The short answer is: not much.”


Crunch, your own source disagrees with your premise.

And yet, all the “science” of it slants only one way. You believe anything people tell you without any notice of what they actually do. No wonder you’re so lost.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2019, 04:00:36 PM
I haven't yet watched it, so I can't comment first hand. I'm hard pressed to understand why I should be suspicious of an expert in the field of nuclear energy. He's secretly trying to destroy his own profession?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2019, 04:03:31 PM
You should avoid watching Sully. It's anti air travel. Apollo 13 is anti space flight.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 09, 2019, 05:03:02 PM
I’m gonna recommend a book for you.  (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GU3H270/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

Quote
This book is a crash course in effective reasoning, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.

You need to read that. Seriously.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 09, 2019, 11:59:42 PM
It is entirely laughable for you to give advice on reasoning.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2019, 08:19:21 AM
smh
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 10, 2019, 10:39:28 AM
Anomie - Never heard that term before.
 
Quote
Perhaps reason will win or the emotionally driven people will, we’ll see
I'd like to hope so but but can't.

Anyway I was thinking about my impressions of the series Chernobyl and anti nuclear wasn't one of them. Actually I was impressed by how hard they had to work to screw it up. It was also interesting that the radiation did not appear to have caused the amount of damage feared. But then there have been no long term studies. - ignorance is bliss. 
The Series was certainly anti communist however what struck me most was the men and woman that stepped up to clean up the mess, even if they had a choice or not.

The troubling part I was thinking about when I mentioned the the show was that the flaw in the reactor was known but ignored. (Which from what I can tell was not made up for the show) Had the plant director followed protocols the exposition would not have happened. I suspect the reason the bureaucrats made to avoid fixing the flaw. Even after the event it took years for them to address the flaw.
If this qualifies as hope...  I'm pretty sure that when disasters strikes their will be people that step up. It would be nice if we prepared ahead of time and or  didn't override 'safety protocols' (metaphor) just because we think we can deal with the problems after they arise  and 'shut it down' before it gets really really bad. However we wont, our arrogance will see to that.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 10:52:15 AM
While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

If it’s too high, what is the correct atmospheric concentration of CO2?

How about not the highest level in the past million years, aka human history?

Preferably back to pre-industrial levels, but I think everyone would settle for simply "not higher than right now". For which, we have to turn to Freedom Panels or Freedom Turbines - not Freedom Gas.

Hope you're ready for mass famines then, because pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 isn't going to be able to grow the crops needed to sustain a population anywhere close to what we have.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 10:56:06 AM
The "right amount" is less right now.  A crashing drop to offset the current repercussions of these levels.  That seems a ridiculous hope, so the "realistic amount" is... Less.  Not trying to be smarty pants here.  In fact, it's pretty a fairly K.I.S.S. response.

Uh, by the numbers they were hoping for targeting by 2050, but have since started to back off from?

They'd have be a net-zero emissions by the 2030's and negative emissions by the 2040's.

It isn't happening, unless society decided to go full nuclear in a very major way, but the eco nuts don't want that, so the goal posts are moving again.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 10:58:09 AM
If you don’t know what it should be, how do you know it’s too high? What should it be?

It should be what the unbroken planet would have it.

And what is that?

A low enough level of CO2 that was on course to likely kill off most currently existing plant life on earth in the next million years or less, more likely than not.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: NobleHunter on June 10, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
Hope you're ready for mass famines then, because pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 isn't going to be able to grow the crops needed to sustain a population anywhere close to what we have.

Are you referring to the effect of CO2 on plant productivity or just that pre-industrial levels of CO2 implies pre-industrial agriculture? Because it would be pretty neat if there was actual data on the effects of CO2 on agriculture separated out from all the other improvements over the last couple of centuries.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2019, 11:22:51 AM
There is data on that and it's definitive that increased CO2 increases crop yields and reduces water consumption. There is a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 levels up to 1200 or even 1500 ppm.

However, at around 700 ppm, CO2 is no longer the limiting factor:
Quote
In an email, Frances Moore, an assistant professor studying climate change’s impact on agriculture at the University of California, Davis, put it this way: “My research does show that higher CO2 concentrations are beneficial to crops, but this effect quickly declines at higher and higher concentrations because plant growth becomes limited by other nutrients.”

So what this makes clear is that plant growth throughout the planet is currently limited by the very low CO2 levels we are experiencing - it is the limiting factor right now.

Quote
The paper about sour oranges, published in the journal Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment in June 2002, found that when a 75 percent increase in CO2 levels — from 400 ppm to 700 ppm — doubles fruit production, it also increases the vitamin C concentration of the fruit’s juice by 7 percent.

From a purely plant/agriculture perspective, CO2 levels in the 700-1000 ppm levels are pretty good.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 11:25:57 AM
If sea levels wipe out coastal population centers, or weather systems become more destructive, or we are having massive species die-offs, or major population centers have air that is killing people, or our ability to feed people due to failed or unplanted crops are on the rise…  It’s “too high”.

Population centers move as the environment(and economy--which was historically highly agrarian and thus very sensitive to environmental changes) changes, this is the story of human history, it has changed before, it will change again, without human involvement. I'm also not fully sold on the idea of more destructive/severe weather being as big of a problem as many people want to make it out to be.

Want to hurricane proof your home? Building to the higher standard typically only adds a few thousand dollars to the cost of the home, mostly in the form of needing more nails. Now tidal surge and the resultant flooding is another matter entirely, but we know how to engineer solutions to that. It also isn't THAT cost prohibitive, it just happens that people are lazy. Let us hear it for advanced societies.

But getting back to "it will be unsurvivable" if you get to 600PPM. Weird, I could swear that the CO2 levels seen on planet earth over the past 800 thousand years are historically abnormal on the geological time scale. I could also swear that life on earth wasn't just simply eeking out a meager existence during that time either. Life seemed to be more than capable of thriving in that kind of environment. The Jurasic Period is now currently believed to have had 4 to 5 times the CO2 levels seen on Earth as of 2014(as per a google search and a 2014  article on LiveScience). While we're reasonably certain we know how that ended, I'm not aware of anyone advocating that those dinosaurs, or other plant/animal life were constantly suffering from the ill effects of unpredictable erratic and extreme weather events brought on by high concentrations of Greenhouse gasses.

Which brings us back around to "Okay, the change itself may not be world ending, but the rate of change is going to cause all kinds of problems" which is valid enough, but that's an engineering problem that society is more than technically proficient at addressing, it just has to be willing to do so.

Quote
The right question to ask is what changes / costs are we willing to accept to improve things?  This isn’t about (or shouldn’t be about) quelling fears or convincing deniers.  It’s about environmental mastery.  Do we really want to just roll the dice on what this dirt ball comes up with once it reaches its own “new normal”?  As do-nothing-ist love to point out, the global climate has changes plenty over its time spinning.  As someone reaping the benefits of the western world… I like what we got now.  If we can make improvements, even better but let’s not make a mess of it and go, “well *censored*, guess it falls into the act-of-god category”.

This is valid, the problem at this point cycles into "The loudest voices in the room" on the subject. And sadly, those voices seem to be predominately left-wits who want to use the entire situation to do some grand-scale social engineering with little or no regard for the rest of the picture. They're not even seriously concerned about the environment, as their favored solutions aren't anywhere close to the most viable answers to the current problem. But those options are not to be spoken of because well, they have an agenda that doesn't work if you do that(go nuclear).
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: NobleHunter on June 10, 2019, 11:31:54 AM
There is data on that and it's definitive that increased CO2 increases crop yields and reduces water consumption. There is a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 levels up to 1200 or even 1500 ppm.

But TheDeamon said there'd be starvation if we dropped CO2 down to pre-industrial levels. That could be implying we know how much of modern increases in agricultural productivity can be traced to increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Which is a more difficult claim to support than "CO2 is good for plants."

Quote
Population centers move as the environment(and economy--which was historically highly agrarian and thus very sensitive to environmental changes) changes, this is the story of human history, it has changed before, it will change again, without human involvement. I'm also not fully sold on the idea of more destructive/severe weather being as big of a problem as many people want to make it out to be.

I suggest checking out what's happened to corn harvest planting this year. Flood proofing a house is simple. Flood proofing crops is less so.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 10, 2019, 11:40:40 AM
How much Co2 is best for crops (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/)

Quote
Norby notes the results scientists produce in labs are generally not what happens in the vastly more complex world outside; many other factors are involved in plant growth in untended forests, fields and other ecosystems. For example, “nitrogen is often in short enough supply that it’s the primary controller of how much biomass is produced”

Quote
Scientists have observed the CO2 fertilization effect in natural ecosystems, including in a series of trials conducted over the past couple decades in outdoor forest plots. In those experiments artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased trees’ productivity by around 23 percent, according to Norby, who was involved in the trials. For one of the experiments, however, that effect significantly diminished over time due to a nitrogen limitation. That suggests “we cannot assume the CO2 fertilization effect will persist indefinitely,” Norby says.

So there is that effect, certainly.

Quote
Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent.

Less good:

Quote
On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.

Quote
“We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million.

I know, another dire prediction that Crunch will be sure to ignore, because scientists are always lying to advance their agenda of trying to destroy humanity.

It may be true that pre-industrial levels are not optimal. If we have adjustment mechanisms in place, we can make that decision based on empirical measurements of crop yields.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 11:44:16 AM
I've noticed the same type of high pressure sales tactic in play as well. Buy now before it's too late. Limited time offer! Call within the next 30 minutes or you'll miss your chance. The same slick tricks used to sell a $20 piece of junk are being used to sell trillion dollar wastes of money in the scam belief that we can keep the climate from changing. The hucksterism involved is just so transparent. The boys and girls who cried wolf.

 "Ocasio-Cortez: "The World Is Going To End In 12 Years If We Don't Address Climate Change"

I'd like to put that to the test. Let's not do anything and see what happens.

My favorite still has to be Senator Al Gore's statements on the Senate Floor about how the world was doomed in just a dozen years if we didn't take drastic actions to avert Global Warming. Then about 14 years later he produces An Inconvenient Truth where he doubles down on that statement, only he forgets to mention his earlier comments. Now here we are, about 14 years after An Inconvenient Truth came out, and we're hearing yet again, "We're less than 12 years away from unavoidable disaster."

And of course, these guys never refer back to the previous time frames they specified for when the apocalypse was due.

But at least Al made a rather significant amount of money in the interim sounding the alarm.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 11:53:08 AM
Climate change or not as the population grows and builds in areas of higher climate risk we should be talking about how to better manage that risk. Or is weather related desasters good for the economy?

People building in vulnerable areas because they "like the aesthetics" is not a climate problem, or really an engineering problem. That's a social problem. Now the better example would be the ones living in areas that weren't at risk previously which are now becoming at risk due to changes in various other factors.

Of course, there are ways to engineer new construction to make it more resilient against what their new risks are, but that points back to the "social problem" of people wanting to live in aesthetically pleasing environments, and their tendency towards being lazy(taking the easier/cheaper route).
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 10, 2019, 04:02:28 PM
Either way, a social problem or climate problem we should be starting to look at ways to deal with the problem.

What I have found that many people link the social problem to the climate debate and a excuse to avoid addressing the social problem   
If you can't prove climate change there is no need to address social policy.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2019, 04:08:34 PM
If you can't prove climate change there is no need to address social policy.

That's not what has to be proven. Climate changes. It always has, it always will. The planet should be warming right now since we're exiting an ice age - hopefully. Anyone arguing for a static climate is arguing against planetary history.

What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 10, 2019, 04:52:02 PM
Quote
What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.

But why does that have to be proven before a debate on social policy can be had. Even without proof a green economy has a lot going for it.
My guess is that the countries that get their first are going to be the 'winners' as it concerns future economic power

And if water levels are increasing should we not be thinking of ways to better protect the coast lines. Or do we wait until we have proof that human activity caused it?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2019, 12:54:11 AM
Anomie - Never heard that term before.
 
Quote
Perhaps reason will win or the emotionally driven people will, we’ll see
I'd like to hope so but but can't.

Anyway I was thinking about my impressions of the series Chernobyl and anti nuclear wasn't one of them. Actually I was impressed by how hard they had to work to screw it up. It was also interesting that the radiation did not appear to have caused the amount of damage feared. But then there have been no long term studies. - ignorance is bliss. 
The Series was certainly anti communist however what struck me most was the men and woman that stepped up to clean up the mess, even if they had a choice or not.

The troubling part I was thinking about when I mentioned the the show was that the flaw in the reactor was known but ignored. (Which from what I can tell was not made up for the show) Had the plant director followed protocols the exposition would not have happened. I suspect the reason the bureaucrats made to avoid fixing the flaw. Even after the event it took years for them to address the flaw.
If this qualifies as hope...  I'm pretty sure that when disasters strikes their will be people that step up. It would be nice if we prepared ahead of time and or  didn't override 'safety protocols' (metaphor) just because we think we can deal with the problems after they arise  and 'shut it down' before it gets really really bad. However we wont, our arrogance will see to that.

I agree with that assessment. Important points include a delay in the test so that factories can meet production quotas. Fear of central committee retribution if the test is delayed more. Hiding design flaws from engineers because it could embarrass the state. Building cheaply and unsafely compared to western reactors. Refusing to ask the US for help because it would be bad propaganda. Jailing or ruining the lives of anyone dissenting against the official accounts.

This should be a series you would love, Crunch, if you watched it. There is never a question raised about the wisdom of building reactors in general.

There is goofiness and inaccuracy, like the inexplicable "her baby absorbed the radiation and saved her". They compress some time frame between exposure and consequence. They shift some events in time, crashing a helicopter much earlier in the timeline.

None of this muddied the main theme, which is that a communist police state has no business building dangerous technology.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 11, 2019, 10:32:36 AM
Quote
Climate changes. It always has, it always will. The planet should be warming right now since we're exiting an ice age - hopefully. Anyone arguing for a static climate is arguing against planetary history.

What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.
Impressive - a Gish gallop of a bunch of thoroughly discredited denialist talking points.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
Let me explore that premise. If a thing has happened to the Earth before, we shouldn't worry about it and its impact on humanity? So we should stop tracking asteroids, because hey, they have hit the Earth before. Avalanches have happened before, so we shouldn't actively attempt to reduce the chances of them happening. Forest fires have happened, so we shouldn't plan on them and take measures to mitigate them?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 11, 2019, 04:03:59 PM
Oh, and before anybody foolishly jumps on my wording above - currently, human activity is the primary driver of climate changes today - recent changes in temperature are estimated to be caused mostly by increases in GHGs.  That's primary, not sole driver.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 11, 2019, 04:24:00 PM
One interesting question that sort of links Crunch's arguments with the AGW arguments, is if were granted with certainty that humans are causing greater than normal warming, whether in fact this is a problem. For instance if it could be shown that our current global temperature is a bit lower than historic average (due to coming out of a mini ice age for instance) then would it not follow that increasing it a bit will not be harmful to the planet, even if we know we're the cause?

Now there are different factors in play here that go beyond what's "good for the planet", whatever that means. We have built up certain infrastructure such as beachfront property and settlements on islands, whose existence is more or less predicated on constant stable conditions. The logic of that may well be questions, just as many people raise an eyebrow when they hear talk of people building on faultlines or in hurricane zones. If we're going to be discussing long-term strategy on a species level (rather than municipal or even national) then these building strategies should be just as much open to discussion as altering the basic foundations of how we use power and resources. Another topic, which does get discussion, is how to bolster our existing infrastructure so that it can withstand natural phenomena better. An example of this issue has occurred semi-recently in respect to solar flares and whether they could potentially knock out our power grids and electrical infrastructure. The short answer to that one is "not really at this point, but less vital systems and areas would still be affected". But a similar analysis could be done regarding anything from earthquake-based architecture to hurricane-proofing future developments. As for building right on the edge of slowly eroding land areas, maybe there's no simple answer to that one other than "be careful about expecting your oceanside home to last 100 years."

One other issue frequently brought up is he polar bears, and how the warming can cause either problems for animals or else even extinctions. This is a concern that actually stirs me, but it must be weighed against the possibility that even without our intervention the climate may have been (more slowly) getting hotten, in which case the animals would have been facing the same situation, albeit later. It's a bit of a problem to ignore the impact of our actions, but also on the other side of it to give ourselves sole credit for things that were going to be inevitable sooner or later. But there are ways we can help the animals to cope with global climate changes and I would be all for these.

But these particular conversations, while they may happen, are not the ones that are sensationalized. We can see that even here on Ornery the discussion tends to revert back to the AGW vs hoax argument, and goes little further than that on either side.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 11, 2019, 04:45:35 PM
You also have millions of people in drought zones who will become increasingly at risk of food and water shortages, leading to things like civil and international wars and mass human migration.  Beachfront property is the least of 'our' concerns as are polar bears. If you think refugees are straining US resources today, this should really be what you focus on... that is, if the idea of tens of millions of additional people being displaced, starving and dying doesn't do it for you.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 11, 2019, 05:18:32 PM
You also have millions of people in drought zones who will become increasingly at risk of food and water shortages, leading to things like civil and international wars and mass human migration.  Beachfront property is the least of 'our' concerns as are polar bears. If you think refugees are straining US resources today, this should really be what you focus on... that is, if the idea of tens of millions of additional people being displaced, starving and dying doesn't do it for you.

I have to admit to ignorance regarding the connection between high temperature and drought in dry areas. Does having the temperature be 0.3 degrees higher on average lower the humidity in the environs such that it causes a drought? If so, my recommendation would be that an emergency measure of helping the drought areas by creating water channels or new reclamation systems would be far cheaper than crippling the entire global economy. And note that I'm not saying it's cheap, but if the "doomsday" crowd really means it then why isn't the argument that the government *must* take measures to help drought areas before it's too late?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 11, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
Mostly because allowing for controlled migration is a far superior plan than trying to "rescue" areas which are becoming less hospitable over time.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 11, 2019, 06:36:56 PM
Quote
Does having the temperature be 0.3 degrees higher on average...
???  You realize that the world is on average already (let's go with NASA) 0.9 degrees (Celsius I assume you meant) warmer than the late 19th century, right?  That's 3 times higher already than the number you pulled out of your hat. We are also going to be severely challenged in keeping future temperature rises below 2 degrees Celsius.
Quote
And note that I'm not saying it's cheap, but if the "doomsday" crowd really means it then why isn't the argument that the government *must* take measures to help drought areas before it's too late?
???  ??? Who do you think pushes for more foreign aid?  It isn't the climate change denialist crowd.  Look, there is already more than enough food grown to supply the world's population.  But for some reason, people are not shipping free food to starving people in drought ridden and war torn countries.
Quote
If so, my recommendation would be that an emergency measure of helping the drought areas by creating water channels
???  ???  ??? If this was so easy (if expensive) then wouldn't the wealthiest country in the world have been able to solve its own drought issues in California, one of the wealthiest areas in the country? Cutting "channels through mountain ranges, and making water flow uphill is really not as simple as you might think.  And doing so for poor people half way across the world, when Mexicans are coming to steal our jobs, rob our stores and rape our women?  It's not going to happen.
Quote
...would be far cheaper than crippling the entire global economy
Ah here we have it - there are many things that can be done that would improve the world's economy and still reduce carbon emissions.  This is simply a failure of imagination and interest on your part.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 11, 2019, 08:54:33 PM
@ DonaldD,

You mistake me in all of your responses, especially your last one. As Han put it, I can imagine quite a bit. I'm not taking the anti-AGW side on this issue, but rather wondering why the form of the arguments has typically taken the form of regulation of carbon emissions via central fiat, and not (to my understanding) typically been framed in terms of helping people in poor countries more or in helping migrate people living in bad areas. I don't recall Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth having a section named An Inconvenient Township. I am all for making energy production more green, and in fact am probably more of an eco-conservationist than a lot of people clamoring for low-carbon regulation. I'm probably more of a pro-technologist than people hoping to replace fossil-fuels.

What I'm asking is why these matters are always framed in partisan terms, or at the very least employing so-called strategies that always end up falling along partisan lines. I don't think anyone would consider "let's build a water system for California" as a partisan byline, and that's probably why one doesn't hear such rallies on a national level: it doesn't sell tickets.

And once we're on the topic of helping third world countries, we could talk about Mexico and South/Central America until we're blue in the face, but let's get real: ruining those countries has been a bipartisan effort for decades. There is no serious desire to substantially help them stand on their own two feet; not when it's far more agreeable to keep them at their knees. That they lack the infrastructure, leadership, and commitment to helping their poor and solving national issues effectively may be laid down to many causes, but not quite helping them enough isn't one of them. So again, if their plight is the real issue then why isn't the rallying cry to end international policies that render them unable to govern themselves properly? Shouldn't that be at least as high a priority as scolding carbon-emitting nations? And wouldn't solving it deal with not only their particular problem in climate but also many others at the same time? But we won't see protests about that, will we?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 11, 2019, 09:27:04 PM
I really don't "mistake you".  Honestly, "0.3" degrees?  Since you have an opinion on what trends you see in people's posts on the subject, how can you seriously ask that question knowing that in no scenario  would there simply be a 0.3 degree change in daily temps? 

It is instructive that all of your oversights and mistakes occur in a single direction.  Think about that for a moment

As for arguments taking a certain form - the majority of the arguments are about the very existence of the temperature trend. That you think the only solutions require economic Armageddon also suggests you are not paying attention

As for helping those poor countries... We already see thousands of North Africans drowning in the Mediterranean every summer, people fleeing situations that are already being exacerbated by climate change.  The world is already doing nothing.  Pretending this will change as the numbers rise is not just ahistorical, it cooks into any eventual forced action probably hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions, before the world does anything.

But of course that ignores that those people receiving foreign aid won't simply sit around in dust bowl conditions, depending on the outside world for food and water... Significant numbers of them will simply leave.  I'd you think there are migration problems now...

Pretty much all of your solutions are naive and fly in the face of current reality... And all because you really, to be generous, have not informed yourself.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 12, 2019, 02:52:37 AM
I really don't "mistake you".  Honestly, "0.3" degrees?  Since you have an opinion on what trends you see in people's posts on the subject, how can you seriously ask that question knowing that in no scenario  would there simply be a 0.3 degree change in daily temps?

I'm not sure why you're picking at this arbitrary figure so intently, it's not like I claimed this was an upper limit of possible climate increase. I mentioned 0.3 degrees just as an example of a timeline-based number. So let's go to NASA's website, a source I'm sure you'll be content with:

Quote
NASA says:
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.

Let's take these figures for granted, and say that "most of the warming" means 75% of it. That means that in 35 years the global climate went up 1.215 degrees Fahrenheit. Since many posts and articles I see mention something like a 10 year deadline before very bad things happen, we might suggest that 10/35 * 1.215 = 0.347 degrees over 10 years. Actually I hadn't looked this up before and I literally guessed a number, but by pure fluke it's very close to 0.3 degrees, the number you're mocking. Of course I didn't mention the 10-year figure previously so you can accuse me of cherry-picking that time-frame, but it's a seemingly reasonable one considering the deadlines one sometimes hears talk of. And while I do agree that long-term planning should trump short-term hand-waiving (to make an understatement), at the same time I don't know that definitive claims for 30+ years into the future are something we can really predict.

Quote
It is instructive that all of your oversights and mistakes occur in a single direction.  Think about that for a moment.

What are "all" my oversights and mistakes? I made so many of them that they can be called an "all"? Incidentally, I assume you consider that 'direction' to be that of doing nothing? But when did I say that? Or do you mean my comments are shilling for big oil or something?

Quote
As for arguments taking a certain form - the majority of the arguments are about the very existence of the temperature trend. That you think the only solutions require economic Armageddon also suggests you are not paying attention.

No, I definitely *do not* think that the only solutions involve economic armageddon, not by any means. Does this mean we agree? But having observed the limited attempts thus far to make changes on an international feel-good level, that seems to be the only consensus-oriented solution that's been offered. Actually I think that much more progress will be found technologically rather than through agreements that won't really curb the trend. It's precisely that I would rather do something than nothing that I take this position. If it were up to me I would re-allocate billions from defense spending directly into R&D (both public and private) where needed. 

Quote
As for helping those poor countries... We already see thousands of North Africans drowning in the Mediterranean every summer, people fleeing situations that are already being exacerbated by climate change.  The world is already doing nothing.  Pretending this will change as the numbers rise is not just ahistorical, it cooks into any eventual forced action probably hundreds of thousands of deaths, if not millions, before the world does anything.

I hadn't researched this issue much but since you prompted me I looked up several articles on the topic of African and Mid-Eastern migration towards Europe, which seems to have grown drastically since around 2014. One NY Times article cites the number of deaths in the Mediterranean at over 10,000. A horror to be sure. However all articles I've found on the topic mention two chief causes for the exodus: the fall of Gaddafi's government, and the war in Syria, two events that have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with politics. And lest the right vs left dispute seem too obviously to fall under "the left wants to help while the right ignores the problem", it should be noted that both of the major incidents took place not only under Democratic leadership, but more properly (and based on what my researches previously have shown) at the direct instigation of certain players like Hillary Clinton. You will find me the first to get in line to express grief over both campaigns, and you will likewise find me annoyed at anyone in the current government content to hand-wave away their part in it.

Now I'm not saying that other factors can influence migrants to seek better conditions, but I'll be surprised if you can find a good source insisting that the migrations began primarily due to climate change rather than due to political instability.

Quote
Pretty much all of your solutions are naive and fly in the face of current reality... And all because you really, to be generous, have not informed yourself.

I wasn't proposing a complete list of solutions, I was asking questions. My questions were basically with the intent to inquire why the AGW side of the climate debate rarely accompanies the scientific arguments with arguments about either political or infrastructure-based conditions. Do you not think it damaging to the cause that most arguments take the form of playing right into the partisan war? It surely doesn't help that the other side is entrenched in opposition, which then goads further engagements in the vicious cycle. And I think this is no accident: I don't actually think that either side believes they can sustain a bipartisan approach to hot-button issues as it will make them appear weak. I was speaking with a couple of political philosophy professors recently about this and their assessment is that the center has been so totally obliterated that only extremist positions on both sides seem to be politically tenable. Maybe that should be the target of ire for climate-change advocacy, since it appears to be the main culprit preventing discussion. Maybe they should have demanded that Hillary run on a campaign finance reform platform, like Bernie did. Trump's "clean the swamp" act got him votes, but the fear was that he didn't really mean it. Why are Democratic candidates not running on a similar platform, but with the proviso that they actually mean it?

These many issues are directly related to the questions I was asking you, but because trench warfare is all most people seem up for I fear that nothing will be done that requires cooperation. Most progress will come from the private sector, and I'm sad to be saying it because I do think that government could be a powerful tool for this. Centralizing resources for big projects is exactly what strong central government should be good at, and the fact that it isn't even good at that right now frankly reminds me of SW: Episode 1's galactic senate. Sorry for the long post...
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 12, 2019, 07:37:56 AM
You conflate the political and the journalistic with the scientific.  Don't do this... it's straight up Crunchian.

Don't quote Al Gore; don't quote some random 'science journalist' on a website.

There is no hard and fast 10-year window.  Every year, every moment without action increases, incrementally, future costs. A ten year window is just the accumulation of all those incremental costs.

As for solution proposals, they come in many forms - NOT just focused on C02 emission reductions (although that is likely where the largest opportunities lie as far as future cost reductions).  Adaption proposals are also being investigated. Refugee and migration policies are being debated. Land reclamation projects are being studied, as are different carbon capture methods. That YOU are focusing exclusively on the CO2 reduction debate doesn't mean other avenues are not also being investigated and debated.

But CO2 emission reductions simply have to occur, unless we want to commit to much higher future costs.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 12, 2019, 10:57:21 AM
You conflate the political and the journalistic with the scientific.  Don't do this... it's straight up Crunchian.

It's not a good sign when pursuing real causes of phenomena is called conflating politics with science. You brought up the migrant problem yourself, and in my addressing it you seem not to like where it led. It's not my fault that all of these realms get mixed up, and yes, bad journalism too is at fault for much of the partisan divide. Trying to segregate these issues from each other is exactly why we're in this situation.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 18, 2019, 07:33:57 AM
Quote
In 2008, Science Daily reported on a study that attributed the decline in Great Lakes water levels to global warming. The researchers who conducted the study said that the drop “raised concern because the declines are consistent with many climate change predictions.”

In 2009, Columbia University’s Earth Institute informed us that “most climate models suggest that we may see declines in lake levels over the next 100 years; one suggests that we may see declines of up to 8.2 feet.”

In 2011, the Union of Concern Scientists said that “scientists expect water levels in the Great Lakes to drop in both summer and winter, with the greatest declines occurring in Lakes Huron and Michigan.”

In 2013, the Natural Resources Defense Council said that “it’s no secret that, partially due to climate change, the water levels in the Great Lakes are getting very low.”

That same year, Think Progress reported that “Several different climate models for the Great Lakes region all predict that lake levels will decline over the next century.”

The problem:

Quote
The very next year, however, water levels started rising.

So the model s and the consensus all say the lake levels will decline but it goes up instead. What to do? Obviously:

Quote
So what are scientists saying now? Simple. They’re now claiming that the fall and rise of Great Lakes’ water levels are due to climate change.

If the lake levels go up or down, doesn’t matter now. Literally anything you can think of “proves” global warming.  They call this “science”.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 18, 2019, 11:18:30 AM
Quote
What has to be proven is the theory that human activity is the primary, or sole driver, of climate change now.

But why does that have to be proven before a debate on social policy can be had. Even without proof a green economy has a lot going for it.
My guess is that the countries that get their first are going to be the 'winners' as it concerns future economic power.

That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them. Now as to nations like Japan which are lacking in such energy reserves, "going green" obviously makes sense, even China for that matter, while they're rich in coal, they don't have much in the way of oil(outside the disputed South China Sea).

Also there is the potential 800 pound gorilla in the room in the form of fusion power. We might still be 50 years out, or we could be 10 years or even 100 years from viable commercial fusion power. But the moment that one hits the scene, everything else before it becomes relegated to being a supplemental power source.

Quote
And if water levels are increasing should we not be thinking of ways to better protect the coast lines. Or do we wait until we have proof that human activity caused it?

I think several of us have already been very clear on this one. The politicians are another matter. But honestly, when the Democrats put emphasis on funding anything but adaptation efforts, it tends to call into question where their own priorities lie as well. It seems the Dems have started to catch on to this bit, and they've started work on it in the past 5 to 10 years. But it is a comparatively recent shift on their part. IT still largely takes the form of lip service, IMO. I'm still waiting on the proposals for state/federal level construction moratoriums in areas likely to become hazardous due to climate change, barring efforts being made to mitigate the risks specific to that location.

No, you don't get to build that $23 million dollar development in a tidal floodplain that is predicted to be innundated in 20 years, unless you "build up" the area in such a way that those homes/businesses are going to be safe from such an occurrence.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2019, 11:51:32 AM
Quote
That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 18, 2019, 01:08:37 PM
Quote
That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

The presupposition (in Randian terms) that self-interest will also tend to yield behavior benefiting the world at large will not bear itself out in reality much of the time. Maybe sometimes it will. More often I think it may create what appears to be short-term benefit with long-term catastrophe. In the particular case here, even if there are some observable pros to transitioning they either will or will not outweight the apparents cons to the parties involved.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2019, 01:19:31 PM
It is a value judgement, on an individual basis. I haven't installed solar on my home because that one installation gives me personally very little benefit on its own. Traditional ROI fails because it would take years to break even - and that's with some government subsidy. I do drive an electric car, but more because I liked its features and not because I wanted to reduce my exhaust.

This is where I think government serves a purpose in helping to apply externality cost to the individuals who are making the decision. Just try to raise tax on gas, and you get demonstrations in the street (at least in France.) Subsidies create less outrage, but also follow uphill battles because it ultimately must result in cuts or taxes somewhere else.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to be precise about the benefits. How much less asthma would there be? How long would it take? How many more oil spills from pipelines, platforms, and tankers should we allow for?

Then you are still stuck with the potential free rider problem, where one group of people does all this by national policy but other groups of people do not.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 18, 2019, 01:54:49 PM
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 18, 2019, 02:09:59 PM
Quote
That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

Is it truly cheaper though?

As to respiratory health and protection of water resources, THAT is another issue, and stands apart from the AGW discussion. People trying to tie the two together are doing a disservice to society by doing so.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 18, 2019, 02:13:15 PM
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 ::)

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2019, 02:38:57 PM
Quote
That's open to debate. Countries rich in fossil fuels(such as the US) may not gain much in transitioning to "green energy options" so long as they have ample fuel sources available to them

What about respiratory health, cheaper transportation, protection of water resources, and international prestige?

Is it truly cheaper though?

As to respiratory health and protection of water resources, THAT is another issue, and stands apart from the AGW discussion. People trying to tie the two together are doing a disservice to society by doing so.

I'm not tying it together, I'm saying it stands alone. I can't prove it empirically in a way that wouldn't be disregarded, so I'm not going to try. I did find some quick numbers, but making the quotes and links when I don't think it helps the discussion is more work than I want to sign up for.

I'm not only talking about cost balancing - like direct medical costs for asthma treatment versus the cost of switching X power plants out. I'm talking about quality of life for not having to carry an inhaler in the first place. I'm talking about the quality of life to not have to hide indoors on bad air quality days. I'm talking about the value of not destroying wildlife. Deepwater costs get calculated for its impact on fishing, but not for its impact on non-economic wildlife. You can disagree with that treatment, but ask yourself if somebody offered to create a "thing" in your town that would generate $100K in revenue but result in $15k worth of medical costs for the population - would you vote to install it?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 18, 2019, 02:45:03 PM
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 ::)

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

And what do you think fishing will be like while those without the old adaptations die off?  ::)

Check out how well it worked out  252 million years ago. (https://earthsky.org/earth/great-dying-252-million-years-ago-concided-with-co2-build-up)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 18, 2019, 04:38:55 PM
I'm not tying it together, I'm saying it stands alone. I can't prove it empirically in a way that wouldn't be disregarded, so I'm not going to try. I did find some quick numbers, but making the quotes and links when I don't think it helps the discussion is more work than I want to sign up for.

I'm not only talking about cost balancing - like direct medical costs for asthma treatment versus the cost of switching X power plants out. I'm talking about quality of life for not having to carry an inhaler in the first place. I'm talking about the quality of life to not have to hide indoors on bad air quality days. I'm talking about the value of not destroying wildlife. Deepwater costs get calculated for its impact on fishing, but not for its impact on non-economic wildlife. You can disagree with that treatment, but ask yourself if somebody offered to create a "thing" in your town that would generate $100K in revenue but result in $15k worth of medical costs for the population - would you vote to install it?

Fact: A lot of the particulate matter tied to transportation in the United States actually has very little to do with the engine, and it used to be much worse in prior decades as well. It seems that driving over sand and gravel at high rates of speed tends to loft the stuff airborne where it can then cause respiratory distress for others. Changing from Petrol to NG, or even electric isn't going to eliminate that.

Yes, it can cut down on ozone(well, except for where power transmission and assorted factors don't play into it), and other emission byproducts from internal combustion engine, but that also points back to "that's an emissions control argument" on the part of such vehicles. Not grounds to ban them because they emit CO2.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 19, 2019, 11:32:18 AM
Fact: in urban centers where pollution from traffic is most concentrated, there isn't a lot of flying gravel and sand from high rates of speed.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 19, 2019, 06:10:08 PM
Quote
A 2018 study by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food looked not just at plastic waste, but also at climate-change damage, ozone depletion, human toxicity and other indicators. It found you must reuse an organic cotton shopping bag 20,000 times before it will have less climate damage than a plastic bag.

If we use the same shopping bag every single time we go to the store, twice every week, it will still take 191 years before the overall environmental effect of using the cotton bag is less than if we had just used plastic.

But the global warming crowd won’t care about that. When the rubber meets the road, it really is about telling you how to live every aspect of your life. Global warming is the excuse to do it. That’s all
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2019, 06:17:26 PM
Well, when the Republicans plan is "deny until we hang ourselves," it really doesn't matter how badly the global warming crowd is doing, does it?   ;)

We'll do what we can until we get a better alternative.

(Besides, the plastic grocery bag bans are primarily for addressing the plastic crisis, not global warming, IIRC.)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 19, 2019, 06:19:09 PM
Only 12 years until it’s too late. Right?  Am I right?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2019, 06:25:27 PM
Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 19, 2019, 09:20:34 PM
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 ::)

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

You are literally making stuff up.

The last time we had 1700 ppm level was far, far longer ago then a million years ago. The highest levels ever weren't much higher then that and they were reached during the Cambrian and Triassic periods. For reference, the Triassic was between 250 and 200 million years ago and was when the dinosaurs started their ascension to dominant lifeform

Evolution and natural selection doesn't at all work in the way you're implying here. Yes, some animals would survive in that environment. They'd be fast reproducing and relatively simple animals like rats and cockroaches.

Bears, whales, deer, etc are not going to "remember" what life was like 200 million years ago and just adapt
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 20, 2019, 01:33:19 PM
Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

You are literally making stuff up.

The last time we had 1700 ppm level was far, far longer ago then a million years ago.

Good thing I said "over a million years ago" rather than "a million years ago" then. But going by Smithsonian I guess I need to change it to read "over 3 million years ago" to be more correct with current levels. Color me silly.

Most life of earth isn't going to be bothered overly much by 200ppm or 2000ppm CO2, plant life will certainly notice and enjoy the difference though.

Acidification is a concern, but I do think it is being overblown. Most of the things being "Adversely impacted by that" happen to be very same life forms you later talk about having very short lifespans and a tendency to reproduce rapidily.

Quote
The highest levels ever weren't much higher then that and they were reached during the Cambrian and Triassic periods. For reference, the Triassic was between 250 and 200 million years ago and was when the dinosaurs started their ascension to dominant lifeform

Evolution and natural selection doesn't at all work in the way you're implying here. Yes, some animals would survive in that environment. They'd be fast reproducing and relatively simple animals like rats and cockroaches.

Crocodiles and Alligators didn't seem to have much trouble adapting. I don't think they qualify as "relatively simple" and they're not considered fast reproducing either last I checked, they're also considered to be millions of years old as a species, ditto for several species of sharks.

Quote
Bears, whales, deer, etc are not going to "remember" what life was like 200 million years ago and just adapt

I think you grossly underestimate nature. Yes, there would likely be a massive die off, but there also would be something that would step in to fill that niche in relatively short order. Maybe not fast enough to satisfy us humans, but soon enough on an evolutionary time scale. (But there also is nothing stopping us humans from intervening to ensure that many species survive such outcomes, so we don't have to wait centuries for nature to run its course)

But of course there also is that whole matter of the dionsaurs to consider as well. They lived on a much warmer planet earth. Some of them were truly massive and consumed mind boggling amounts of vegetation in order to support their respective life cycles(doubly so when you consider the comparably large carnivores). A world that can sustain a Brontosaurus doesn't seem to me to be a world that is hostile to all life. Given that the world in question also had to support sufficient plant life for said Brontosaurus to graze upon.

I'd be grossly disappointed if the human race couldn't figure out how to survive in such an environment. That strikes me as an utter failure of imagination and engineering. If proto-pine trees from 60 Million years ago can survive all the rampant extreme weather that a 3 degree(Celsius) warmer world brings to bear, why can't human civilization?

People need to seriously get over themselves. The worst case scenario isn't likely to be as bad as many people want to make it out to be. Contrary to Mad Max advocates, the climate record doesn't suggest a warmer earth leads to a planetary desert, rather it results in a planetary tropical zone that extends well in to Canada. Better have plenty of bug spray, you're going to need it. Yes, methodological changes would be happen over time as to where and how crops are grown, but that's  a far cry from "we're going to be unable to grow food to support any kind of meaningful human population."

Unless of course you want to claim dinosaurs are a myth.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 20, 2019, 06:04:59 PM
Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 20, 2019, 06:30:41 PM
Oh, cool. My bad. I should have known when you said over a million years ago it was meant to refer to 200 million and not 2-3 million years ago. Totally my fault there.

There will be a whole lot of lifeforms bothered by the 2000 ppm figure you just put up. 200, less so, and an increasing severity inbetween.

Most all animals are very finely tuned to fit into a specific niche in a specific type of environment. When conditions change too fast in too many ways they don't tend to throw out a polar bear Jesus who magically remembers the genes from a few hundred thousand or million years ago. They just go extinct. There are, of course, outliers. Such as rats and roaches and, yes, crocodilians. Crocodilians are both more fast at reproducing then you apparently think, (alligator females lay an average of 35-50 eggs a year, a number that can go up to 90) and quite simple in what they do. Animals need to drink water. Crocs have adapted to sit in warm or warmish water and wait for said animals to go get a drink and then ambush them.

It's a really good strategy. So good that even with our big brains crocodilians manage to kill over a thousand people a year on the lower estimates. Like the sharks (who have a good sense of smell and sharp teeth and a willingness to at least to take a bite to see if it's tasty) they can lay claim to a simple but reliable way of life. They haven't changed because they haven't needed to change.

On a lighter note, there wasn't a Brontosaurus. The appropriate name is Apatosaurus. Although there have been some rumblings about a supposed new species they want to give the name Brontosaurus to. Yes. I was that kid who was really into non-avian dinosaurs.

And while I can't talk for everyone, I have never said all of life is at stake. Just the complex life. I mean, a very large proportion of the Earth's population lives within 20 miles of a seacoast. The richest country in the world routinely chooses not to handle homelessness. In what scenario do you imagine that all of those people who are displaced by rising sea levels are welcomed warmly with a job and a home?

So, there are extinctions and then there are *extinctions.*

Here's some info on extinction events.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

What is interesting is by the definition of it we'rein the middle of the human extinction event. Whether through hunting (North America fauna was comparable to Africa's til humans showed up. Australia was like a school shooting.) or just us claiming land or changing the climate, we are literally in the middle of a human centred extinction event.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 20, 2019, 06:31:33 PM
Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You forgot to mention Quora.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on June 20, 2019, 06:39:24 PM
Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You'd better check that strawman for mice, Crunch.  One of them is liable to bite you. :)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 21, 2019, 06:59:02 AM
Too late for what?

The world isn't going to end in 12 years.  We just will have changed our climate for our children and grandchildren, most likely for the worse.  And we will continue to make it worse until we reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

It will be too late to prevent the changes then.  We will have to spend money not only reducing our carbon output, but also taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

If we can't afford it now, what will we do then when it's even more expensive?

Too late for what? Are you sure you’re following the climate issue?  It’s always 12 years until it’s too late to save the planet. If we don’t take action by 1998, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2025, 2028, 2030. Otherwise the planet is completely uninhabitable by 2050.

You'd better check that strawman for mice, Crunch.  One of them is liable to bite you. :)

Every bit of it is supported up thread multiple times. Pretending not to notice that is simple denial
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
No climate scientist has ever used your hyperbolic "completely uninhabitable" strawman. They have said it is too late to reverse effects that could be considered very bad outcomes, and they have detailed those outcomes.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 21, 2019, 10:21:16 AM
Scientists?  No, but I have heard this spouted from people online.  Never someone *I* know, but the kooks are out there.  No shock these are the ones deniers want to use as poster children for their opposition.   ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 22, 2019, 09:12:50 AM
No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2019, 12:48:30 PM
No climate scientist has ever used your hyperbolic "completely uninhabitable" strawman. They have said it is too late to reverse effects that could be considered very bad outcomes, and they have detailed those outcomes.

Al Gore did, about 30 years ago. Many of the political class and the punditry have likewise made similar allusions in the past. And likely will in the future.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 22, 2019, 04:42:25 PM
No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?

If you're human, the idea of it being much milder is pretty absurd.

Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

I am not at all denying your and Daemons assertions that humanity and multicellular life will survive. I'm saying that your assertions that we'll all be cool and dandy is transparent bullshti.

The food chain for the human population is a whole lot thinner then most people think.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2019, 07:14:19 PM
Scientist : You should really trim that tree branch that's about to fall on your house.

Denialists: yeah that's what you've been saying for the past three years.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 22, 2019, 08:37:24 PM
Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

Good thing we have silos full of raw foodstuffs waiting for use, enough to last a couple years IIRC.

Also a good thing that catastrophic increases in sea level also is something hotly contested by science. We're not talking about sea levels increasing by feet in the span of months or even years. You're talking about decades.

For advanced economies, that is time enough to either adapt or relocate in a more controlled manner. Yes even a 1 foot increase is going to have a more significant impact than many think because of that whole tidal/wave motion aspect(it can "climb"), but we still cycle back to: It can be disputed that the rate of increase is going to exceed our ability to adapt.

3rd World Shanty-towns building on a coastal flood plain are entirely different matter, those need urgent attention. But they needed that years ago, and spending Trillions on Green Energy sources today is going to do exactly zero towards helping those people if the doom and gloom scenarios pan out. They'll be flooded out either way at this point.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 22, 2019, 09:21:35 PM
"Good thing we have silos full of raw foodstuffs waiting for use, enough to last a couple years IIRC."

Where do you get that idea? While it is true that western nations have extra food, there are parts of the world that live from harvest to harvest.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 23, 2019, 08:20:13 AM
Scientist : You should really trim that tree branch that's about to fall on your house.

Denialists: yeah that's what you've been saying for the past three years.

Narrator: the tree branch is 12 inches long and 1/8 inch in diameter.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 23, 2019, 08:28:21 AM
No true climate scientist have made such doomsday predictions. Really. Logical fallacies abound.

So, everyone in the media is lying is about the impact. It’s great we got guys like you here to expose us to the truth. What are these much milder consequences of global warming if unchecked?

If you're human, the idea of it being much milder is pretty absurd.

Sea levels will rise. As I said above, a very large proportion of the human population lIves pretty close to the shoreline. So they are all going to flee and hide. Where do they live? Where do they work?

Climate change will be extensive as well. Places depended upon to grow or raise food for vast populations become completely unable to.

I am not at all denying your and Daemons assertions that humanity and multicellular life will survive. I'm saying that your assertions that we'll all be cool and dandy is transparent bullshti.

The food chain for the human population is a whole lot thinner then most people think.

Actually, I’m saying humanity cannot accidentally and unintentionally terraform a entire planet with minute amounts of a fractional trace gas. Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology. As the planet goes through its cycles, we may have to adjust our lives - or maybe not if the pause and recent cooling trend holds.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 24, 2019, 09:50:25 AM
Quote
Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.
Defeatist.  :(

We'll never terraform LV-426 at this rate.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2019, 10:05:39 AM
Quote
Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.

Been hearing that argument a lot lately. Not just about Climate.
Not so much defeatism and giving up but as a 'reason' or excuse to continue current behavior.
ts defeatism but not quite as those often using such arguments continue to be striving for the gold.  Where all going to die so why do we bother
The question being even if the outcome is unlikely to change is it still worthwhile doing better as we learn better?
Or Climate change cant be changed so let me get mine while the getting is good....

 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on June 24, 2019, 12:21:49 PM
Quote
I think you grossly underestimate nature.


So how do you estimate nature will recycle CO2 to O2 on the same scale it always has when we cut down the forests and raze the coral reefs?  Nature uses natural mechanisms, no? Or do you posit a supernatural nature?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2019, 12:44:55 PM
It isn't broken.
I didn't do it.
It was broken when I got there.
I'm not fixing it unless everyone else helps.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2019, 03:48:51 PM
My parents wanted to insure they left their children a inheritance, today that desire is shifting to spend it all before I die.
The climate debate is amounting to the same thing? 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 24, 2019, 04:09:06 PM
Quote
I think you grossly underestimate nature.


So how do you estimate nature will recycle CO2 to O2 on the same scale it always has when we cut down the forests and raze the coral reefs?  Nature uses natural mechanisms, no? Or do you posit a supernatural nature?

I don't know how nature will do it, but this technology looks interesting. I'm not sure if it's feasible large scale, but still interesting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-41816332

Though the whole process of pump CO2 into the air, then destroy nature's way of removing CO2, then frantically try to technology up a solution reminds me of someone who tells a small lie and then gradually has to keep telling bigger and bigger lies just to cover the original up.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 24, 2019, 04:26:55 PM
Quote
Climate change is something that happens naturally and cannot be controlled with current technology.

Been hearing that argument a lot lately. Not just about Climate.
Not so much defeatism and giving up but as a 'reason' or excuse to continue current behavior.
ts defeatism but not quite as those often using such arguments continue to be striving for the gold.  Where all going to die so why do we bother
The question being even if the outcome is unlikely to change is it still worthwhile doing better as we learn better?
Or Climate change cant be changed so let me get mine while the getting is good....

Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2019, 04:44:06 PM
It's all about trying to run your life, Crunch. That's why we don't let people burn their garbage in the back yard, dump motor oil into storm drains, or dump motor home waste in the Walmart parking lot. It's all about you.

It certainly can't have anything to do with risks to health and property, as well as taking proactive steps to preserve and improve the environment that everyone has to live in.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2019, 05:47:20 PM
Quote
Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.

Does a ant or worm impact its environment and the nature of soil? Does humanity and its actions stand apart from nature?
Is the argument that because climate change has nothing to do with human activity we can do nothing about it we should continue on as were doing even if we can do better.
If we know eating healthy is better for us (better quality time) even though in the end we die should we eat heather?

Extinction events happen, at a personal level we will all experience one. The question for me isn't how I might change that but how I might like the last years to look, mine and the earths left behind.
I choose clean air, clean water and green grass... I will vote and spend my money with that in mind. Will that impact the end result? No, however I prefer the journey to the destination.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 24, 2019, 06:41:55 PM
It's all about trying to run your life, Crunch. That's why we don't let people burn their garbage in the back yard, dump motor oil into storm drains, or dump motor home waste in the Walmart parking lot. It's all about you.

It certainly can't have anything to do with risks to health and property, as well as taking proactive steps to preserve and improve the environment that everyone has to live in.

Non sequiter.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 24, 2019, 06:48:17 PM
Quote
Or climate change has nothing to do with human activity so quit trying to run every aspect of my life.

Does a ant or worm impact its environment and the nature of soil? Does humanity and its actions stand apart from nature?
Deep.

Is the argument that because climate change has nothing to do with human activity we can do nothing about it we should continue on as were doing even if we can do better.

No

If we know eating healthy is better for us (better quality time) even though in the end we die should we eat heather?

Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?

Extinction events happen, at a personal level we will all experience one. The question for me isn't how I might change that but how I might like the last years to look, mine and the earths left behind.
I choose clean air, clean water and green grass... I will vote and spend my money with that in mind. Will that impact the end result? No, however I prefer the journey to the destination.

And that is your choice. Please pursue it with all the passion you can, seriously. Live life how you wish. I’d like to have same freedom.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 25, 2019, 09:50:23 AM
Quote
Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?
No I wouldn't
However if the same people are making it more difficult to eat healthier I might push back.

I remember when the smoking laws were being debated. OMG it was going to be the end of bars and restaurants. How dare someone who didn't smoke impinge on the rights of those that did smoke. Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.


I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.
A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 25, 2019, 10:10:04 AM
Today people can still smoke, their are still bars and restaurants, and we all can enjoy a nice meal without coming home stinking of smoke.  Nothing, including climate happens in a vacuum. Freedom exist within boundaries, and Democracy is about finding the middle ground.  No one gets to have it 100% their way.

I don't exercise and attempt to eat better to live longer, I do it so that years I do have will be good ones. I view my impact on the environment that I live in the same way. We aren't going to stop what's coming, but we don't need to use that as a excuse not to do the best we can with what we have.

Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost, and jobs are created. 

A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Let’s go to the moon did not mean we had to get they’re in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for. 
Let’s aim for something bigger then ourselves.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 25, 2019, 12:15:42 PM
Quote
Are you going to force people to eat healthier? Are you going to dictate what can be eaten and in what quantities?
No I wouldn't
However if the same people are making it more difficult to eat healthier I might push back.

I remember when the smoking laws were being debated. OMG it was going to be the end of bars and restaurants. How dare someone who didn't smoke impinge on the rights of those that did smoke. Change happens, extinction events happen, technology changes and kills of the old, the driving force to economies changes, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.


I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.
A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base? Come on. You want to make decisions based on feelz rather than logic. That’s just not smart nor is it reasonable to force others to go along with what makes you happy.

Look, you’re not being honest here about a realistic transition. For example, a realistic transition would include nuclear power. But environmentalists don’t want that.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 25, 2019, 12:37:56 PM
I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.  A lot more convincing argument than, "clean coal". 

Then again, it works domestically, as we're already a nuclear power.  Do we just tell others who aren't that they're out of luck?  No nukes AND pressure them away from high carbon solutions?  Sure sounds like we would need to be trailblazing sustainable technologies if we wanted to make that case, no?

And seriously, what's left to prove?  We're quibbling over data points, not the big picture.

Polluter profits vs rate of doing what we know we should.  Not being honest about a realistic transition?  That's kinda a stunning statement. 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 25, 2019, 12:39:17 PM
Quote
You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base

IMO the change is inevitable, just a matter of timing and who dominates. My position is that that change be a transition that we plan for and that the west dominates.
This would be a long term plan of transition grounded in economics.  If it helps the environment great but is not dependent on proving that humanity influences climate

And yes I agree that a realistic transition would include nuclear power especially if the transition to happen in a shorter time frame.
I know the environmentalists wants the change now and their job is to push for that just as its the other extreme to push back. The the way forward lies in the middle and cooler heads, Id prefer if we planed it

If I were young again and thinking of a career to study I would be looking forward and not trying to bring back the horse and carriage. There a lot of economic and social opportunities in move technology in the direction of clean efficiency 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 25, 2019, 06:26:33 PM
Quote
You don’t know why you have to prove anything when the requirement would be to completely change the US economic and industrial base

IMO the change is inevitable, just a matter of timing and who dominates. My position is that that change be a transition that we plan for and that the west dominates.
This would be a long term plan of transition grounded in economics.  If it helps the environment great but is not dependent on proving that humanity influences climate

Long term. You know we have less than 12 years, right? There is no long term.

And yes I agree that a realistic transition would include nuclear power especially if the transition to happen in a shorter time frame.
I know the environmentalists wants the change now and their job is to push for that just as its the other extreme to push back. The the way forward lies in the middle and cooler heads, Id prefer if we planed it

You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.

If I were young again and thinking of a career to study I would be looking forward and not trying to bring back the horse and carriage. There a lot of economic and social opportunities in move technology in the direction of clean efficiency

If there’s plenty of opportunity, then we don’t need to force anyone to comply with environmentalists’ agenda. People would be flocking to it.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 25, 2019, 06:30:46 PM
I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.


Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

And seriously, what's left to prove?  We're quibbling over data points, not the big picture.

The big picture is forcing people to comply with unproven theory. If you want to use the force of government to enforce compliance with your ideas, it ought to be proven correct. Why do you object to that?
Polluter profits vs rate of doing what we know we should.  Not being honest about a realistic transition?  That's kinda a stunning statement.

False dichotomy.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 25, 2019, 06:36:23 PM
By the way, check out (https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-06-24054927_shadow.jpg) current temperature trends for the last 2 years. Going down. The slight cooling trend of the last 15 years may be accelerating.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 25, 2019, 06:52:10 PM
Using data from NASA.
Quote
From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius."

We are very nearly back to 1980’s temperatures. This alone falsifies global warming theory.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 25, 2019, 08:13:51 PM
I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.


Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

Why is D.W. a part of "you guys"?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 25, 2019, 11:04:39 PM
Well to be fair, I'm a *censored*ty environmentalist.  He can generalize if I can I suppose.

For the record, I've always scoffed at the apocalypse scenarios.  I mean up in Michigan I'm more concerned about polar vortexes than rising sea levels or running the AC a tiny bit more for a couple months.  ;)

But I'm an odd-ball.  I think we'll need to have mastered this tech for extra-earth projects before we need them to fend off the apocalypse.

From a geo-political stand point however we'll need it faster than that.  The longer we drag our feet on "green tech" the greener the grass looks in the more developed nations; and the more those outside if it are going to abandon their homes for a shot at what we got.  Make no mistake, everyone wants what we got, in comforts if not always the culture.  If they all try to go about it the way we did it ain't gonna be pretty.  (or cheap)  Oh, and we probably wouldn't let them, so add bloody to that list too.

So wait... maybe a 30 year line in the sand for some real nastiness IS on the table?  Just not how the tree-huggers think.  :P 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on June 25, 2019, 11:08:48 PM
Quote
You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.
Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   ;D
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 26, 2019, 07:56:26 AM
Quote
You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.
Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   ;D

Mostly big oil, they've historically been the biggest sponsors of anti-nuclear activism pretty much since before there were anti-nuclear activists. They still are, solar and wind power are only viable at current tech if you also build large natural gas power generation facilities to come online when wind/solar isn't enough, as they're the only thing which can be turned on and back off in any kind of "on demand" response window. Nuclear? Once it is online, its online for hours, if not days.

Edit to add: And even transitioning to Electric Vehicles isn't a loser for big oil, so long as Nuclear isn't on the table for grid power, because once again, you're going to need Natural Gas to make sure the lights stay on, and that you can charge your car.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 26, 2019, 08:57:51 AM
I'm not anti-nuke...  I think that's easily the most sensible approach to addressing the problem in the next few decades.  So push that.


Next few decades? We have less than 12 years to avert the apocalypse. That’s what you guys have said for over 30 years.

Why is D.W. a part of "you guys"?

Just a figure of speech.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 26, 2019, 09:24:14 AM
Quote
You can say yes to nuclear power, environmentalists trying to sound reasonable often do. However, you know that the movement won’t accept it.
Which movement?  Big Oil?  Big Coal?  Maybe the Nuke lobiest are waiting for public sentiment to shift and those other energy juggernauts will all just slap those chums on the back and withdraw from the field with a, "well played ol' boy!", seems plausible...

But no, it's "the movement" that won't accept it.  Yep!  All those ridiculous science denying tree hugging, cloth grocery bag using obstructionists!   ;D

This is what it generally comes down to, a little sarcasm and ad hominem. The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause". In the last 2 years, it's actually begun cooling (see post above). Since CO2 levels rose for the last 2 decades, this directly contradicts global warming theory and is precisely why it was renamed to "global climate change" so that everything that happens now confirms global warming.  Cooling, warming, rain, drought, sunny, cloudy, snow, no snow, it all confirms global warming.

In the end, we have these "scientists" that depend on global warming for their influence and funding altering data to fit the theory; this is well documented. They change historical temperature records so that the past is colder and current conditions are warmer, erasing events like the Medieval Warming Period from the record. This is not science, it's modern day Lysenkoism.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 26, 2019, 09:50:17 AM
Interesting article on the possible future of nuclear energy
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-1.5188048
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 26, 2019, 09:53:40 AM
Quote
The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause"

Its all on how you pick your sources

Quote
New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: ScottF on June 26, 2019, 11:47:49 AM
My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 26, 2019, 03:55:45 PM
My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.

I guess that would depend on "all along". I found some papers describing this phenomenon dating back to the 90s. That doesn't guarantee that every model had the concept applied correctly and accurately. Note that we can't really predict how volcanic every given year is or the other phenomena. It simply adds noise to the system that has to be averaged out.

In general, models are tested against historical data. If a given phenomenon didn't have a dominating impact within the data set, it could easily get overlooked. There may well be unknown factors contributing to increases or decreases that we have yet to identify. That doesn't make decades of observations "wrong".
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: ScottF on June 26, 2019, 06:53:26 PM
My confidence that this same "natural variability", ie volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, has been factored into the models all along is...low.

I guess that would depend on "all along". I found some papers describing this phenomenon dating back to the 90s. That doesn't guarantee that every model had the concept applied correctly and accurately. Note that we can't really predict how volcanic every given year is or the other phenomena. It simply adds noise to the system that has to be averaged out.

In general, models are tested against historical data. If a given phenomenon didn't have a dominating impact within the data set, it could easily get overlooked. There may well be unknown factors contributing to increases or decreases that we have yet to identify. That doesn't make decades of observations "wrong".

I agree with you on the point of natural variability being virtually impossible to model and/or account for. We can't predict it, nor necessarily be aware (empirically) of the degree to which it's been happening over decades, centuries, etc.

I've already stated my Pascal's Wager approach to environmental care, do you entertain even the possibility that these models may be much less valuable or predictive than many believe, given the stated variables?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 26, 2019, 09:00:32 PM
That's tricky to parse. Much less valuable than many believe? Given the amount of people who think they have no value. Less valuable than politicians think they are? Or less valuable than the union of concerned scientists say? Models don't have to achieve perfection to be valuable. There are a lot of people who focus on the worst possible outcome. Those that act as though that worst case is a total lock are generally using the model data wrong. The reality is almost certainly not going to be that, and it could just as likely be at the bottom of the range.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 27, 2019, 09:34:37 AM
I don't under stand why we must prove that human actions is accelerating climate change to develop ways to uses our resources more defiantly with less impact on our air and water.

That's an important point.  So what must you prove, where you are proposing that western economies, which produce merchandise at the lowest/best environmental burden per unit of production, lower their production to meet artificial carbon goals that cause non-western economies to ramp up production at a far worse carbon burden?

I'm very pro-environment, I propose the US increase its carbon production by 20% and set a new efficiency goal of per unit production that causes that to equate to at least a 30% increase in overall production.  Then we can put the third world factories out of business for good.

I propose we add 500% tariffs on all goods produced in factories that don't meet current US environmental standards and efficiency standards.

I propose we add 500% tariffs on top of those tariffs on goods produced in countries that have not committed to immediate carbon reductions (China for example has promised to slow down it's rate of increase sometime more than the "12" years we have from now).

I propose immediately and mandatory deplatfoming of anyone that advocates for false statements about the dangers of nuclear power or that proposes any restrictions on the building of nuclear plants.

Quote
A realistic transition plan makes sense, personal and economical. Lets go to the moon did not mean we had to get their in a year, it only meant we had a target to aim for.

What are you so afraid of.

I agree, the United States has been involved in a UNILATERAL transition plan implementation for 4 decades.  Why are you afraid of demanding the rest of the world catch up rather than undermining the economy of one of the cleanest producers of things by volume.

Heck if you're really serious, put the onus where it really sits, not on American industry, but on Americans themselves.  No more "green grass," grass is not environmentally friendly, it uses ridiculous amounts of water and chemical treatments to keep it "green" and eliminates massive amounts of habitat and biodiversity.  Make it against the law to have more than 10% of yard dedicated to grass.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 27, 2019, 09:46:20 AM
Wasn't sure to like the above or not... maybe if it was 600% tariffs 

Interesting that you responded with extreme sarcasm to what I see as a reasonable approach to transition and change. I wasn't advocating it be all or nothing approach only that it be a plan.
I want to see the west develop the technology that is going to power the future and our fear of a change should not be a road block.

This attitude that everything must be either or is tiresome.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 27, 2019, 10:23:15 AM
That's tricky to parse. Much less valuable than many believe? Given the amount of people who think they have no value. Less valuable than politicians think they are? Or less valuable than the union of concerned scientists say? Models don't have to achieve perfection to be valuable. There are a lot of people who focus on the worst possible outcome. Those that act as though that worst case is a total lock are generally using the model data wrong. The reality is almost certainly not going to be that, and it could just as likely be at the bottom of the range.

Not to butt in but this doesn't actually answer the question. ScottF's question was:

Quote
do you entertain even the possibility that these models may be much less valuable or predictive than many believe, given the stated variables?

In this case I think it's pretty clear that "many" means the people who believe strongly in what the climate models show, that AGW is destructively altering the Earth's climate. It has nothing to do with the models demonstrating "perfection". The question seems to pose to you whether you'd be willing to admit that the variance on the reliability of the models is wide enough that it's entirely possible that the results "many" claim come from them are simply wrong, full stop. Note that this also includes the possibility that they're mostly correct, full stop. But would you submit that in arguing for listening to these models you're knowingly taking a gamble on their accuracy, or do you rather believe that it's no gamble at all and that we should be satisfied to hang our hats on the models such as they are? Pascal's wager applies because you have to make a choice on this in the here and now: "do something immediately" is incompatible with "wait and see".
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 27, 2019, 11:28:29 AM
I have high confidence in what the climate models show. There is a warming trend and it can be attributed to AGW, and that this has worse outcomes than if it were not happening. That level of predictive ability can be proven. Some expected local minima due to various inputs does not alter the veracity of the models. Does that help make it clear enough, so that I don't have to define the "many" or the "much less"? That's all I was objecting to in the phrasing.

If the models overshoot by 30% on the mean line, does that make them "much less" valuable or just "less" valuable? It might mean that more money gets spent up front than in the long run, but this doesn't seem like a serious problem. We're better off spending now than later. This isn't the first time that short term views delayed fixing something that needed to be fixed. We can look to the Y2K problem, which was 100% understood and undeniable, yet most organizations waited till the last minute to fix them which made it more expensive and added risk.

Mend the fence now, even if it might hold up for another season.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 27, 2019, 02:02:03 PM
Interesting that you responded with extreme sarcasm to what I see as a reasonable approach to transition and change. I wasn't advocating it be all or nothing approach only that it be a plan.

I think it's interesting that a plan that would actually help the environment is labeled as "extreme sarcasm" when the plans that were being discussed would harm the environment on net are seen as fulfilling a vague need to "do something."

I'm all for a serious environmental solution, but with 3rd world polluters absolutely refusing even slow down the rate at which they are increasing pollution (you understand that China may have increased carbon by 8% last year, and 9% more next year, and 15% more of that number afterwards), you are talking about 50 years before China hits a "baseline" from which they will talk about cuts, any "serious" solution that does not talk about putting their factories out of business is nothing more than a "makes me feel good" suicide pact (if these environmental theories are actually correct).

There is absolutely no way to reconcile "doing something" that involves cuts at the cleanest factories in favor of the dirtiest with being serious about the problem.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 27, 2019, 03:00:01 PM
US carbon per capita is amongst the highest with 15.53 tons. This is far higher than China at 6.59. Way more than India at 1.58. Mexico: 3.66.

So they are the problem because we got a head start? They could roll unfettered for dozens of years on coal fired plants and do nowhere near the damage we do. Not having as many cars is their contribution. Not having water treatment plants is their contribution.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

It would make a lot more sense to add broad sales and energy taxes to curb our outrageous consumption.

Anything else is an attempt to enshrine and make permanent our advantage in standard of life that requires more energy.

You could entirely wipe out manufacturing in the third world, and it doesn't make much difference.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 27, 2019, 03:42:46 PM
Carbon per capita?  You are kidding.  If you want to directly restrict personal carbon use please put forward a proposal that constrains the daily waste of American life.  No driving a personal car.  10% limits on grass.  Real proposals.

If you're talking industry per capita is just a propaganda lie, its appropriately measured by reference to production, which favors clean factories over dirty ones.

Again, I can't take you seriously when your measures are designed to prop up third world dirty factories for decades.  It wouldn't make a difference?  China is already the largest carbon producer (by far) and is also still increasing its rate every year.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 27, 2019, 04:14:35 PM
Carbon per capita?  You are kidding.  If you want to directly restrict personal carbon use please put forward a proposal that constrains the daily waste of American life.  No driving a personal car.  10% limits on grass.  Real proposals.

If you're talking industry per capita is just a propaganda lie, its appropriately measured by reference to production, which favors clean factories over dirty ones.

It seems to me that (assuming the figures Drake provided are accurate) it's not so much that carbon per capita is misleading, as there needs to be a figure that reads as something like "carbon per industrialized capita". And in fact there needs to be another figure to help measure the first one, let's call it "per capita industrial participation", which then fits into the "industrialized capita" term as a fraction. So for instance a person living in a fully industrualized city would be a reference of "1" in the "industrial participation" figure, whereas someone living in a rural area but in an industrialized region might be a "0.75" or something and someone living in a non-industrialized township (like a rice farming town) might be a "0.25" or something. Maybe there's a coherent way to measure such a thing. Basically 'industry per capita' doesn't quite work because a powerful industry that involves and favors only a portion of a nation's population doesn't really bear mentioning all the people uninvolved with it. If there are 1 billion people in China but only 200 million of them live in a big city, work in an industrial area, or even purchase things related to those, they barely participate in the nation's industry in the first place and counting them among the "per capita" is very misleading. So a modifier is needed there. Whereas by contrast in the U.S. most of the population would probably be somewhere between 0.75 and 1 in terms of how much they 'partake' of their nation's industry (not just as owners, but as consumers as well).

Quote
Again, I can't take you seriously when your measures are designed to prop up third world dirty factories for decades.  It wouldn't make a difference?  China is already the largest carbon producer (by far) and is also still increasing its rate every year.

I do take Drake's point that referencing "third world" factories when we're really just talking about China is a bit misleading.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 27, 2019, 04:18:56 PM
Quote
I'm all for a serious environmental solution, but...

I agree it would take extreme action and if we were really serious we would take it. However that is not a argument for doing nothing.
 
My interest in a transition to 'green' technology is economic and by transition I mean one that is balanced.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 27, 2019, 07:43:19 PM
Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.  Having China produce more wastefully because they already have reproduced more wastefully is absolutely counterproductive to the goal of a better environment.

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on June 27, 2019, 08:16:03 PM
Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.

My comment was intended with a baseline level of technology that's standard. If the environmental efficiency is taken into account then it would additionally require its own modifier in the 'equation'. My point was simply that it's not that per capita is garbage, it's that it's garbage without qualification. Citing environmental efficiency is just one qualification; I happened to cite another.

Quote
Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

Er, didn't I address this point (obliquely) in my last post?

But actually there's another factor in play as well. If China is producing 40 million "pollution", of which 30 million is consumed by Americans, while America produces 20 million "pollution", of which 15 million is consumed by Americans, it seems to me that the fact that reverse-colonialism is the form of production shouldn't weigh into 'whose' production it is. But that being said the environmental efficiency would be relevant regardless of who 'consumes' the production. In fact by all rights the consumer mostly has control (if he chooses to exercise it) over the workplace conditions. For example of American law states what you suggested above, it would require alterations in Chinese production methods. We actually do see this now, where for example Walmart has certain workplace conditions that a factory must pass in order to be a supplier even of a supplier of Walmart. They must pass an inspection (which no doubt the Chinese are expert at 'passing', but nevertheless...) in order to be an approved supplier, and they get repeated inspections. This probably only guarantees a certain level of compliance in certain regards, but it does eliminate out of hand certain egregious practices that it wouldn't be practical to hide during these inspections. But likewise any giant retailer, or the government on behalf of all retailers, could enforce any workplace rule they liked if they wanted the "American production located in China" to follow an American-type efficiency rating. The fact is that everyone winks and secretly prefers the lower prices, including the people who say they want to save the world.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 27, 2019, 09:08:11 PM
Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Of course, there is a wide overlap in all sectors (industry manufactures goods purchased for residential use, electricity generated is used by both industry and residential, etc.  Which all goes back to per capita: the CO2 costs of products, infrastructure, food, and transportation are created throughout the US economic cycle, and consumed for the most part by US consumers (i.e., per capita comes into play)

And the same goes for the Chinese - it's just that as China exports more finished products to the US than the other way around, and the US consumers actually have a larger CO2 footprint as a result of purchasing Chinese exports.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 27, 2019, 10:02:00 PM
Quote
Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

Er, didn't I address this point (obliquely) in my last post?

But actually there's another factor in play as well. If China is producing 40 million "pollution", of which 30 million is consumed by Americans, while America produces 20 million "pollution", of which 15 million is consumed by Americans, it seems to me that the fact that reverse-colonialism is the form of production shouldn't weigh into 'whose' production it is.

That was more a general rant than directed at you, but this is why I had the 500% tariffs (really 1000%) in there as well.  Chinese over production on polluting terms is being encouraged because it's generating cheap goods for excessive consumerism.  Requiring all production to be clean has the natural consequence of making excessive consumerism expensive.

Most of what we think of as solutions for the environment is not really targeted at what's causing the pollution.

Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Is it?  It's been perfectly convenient in the Paris accords to allow the world's biggest polluter, China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita.  So are several other Asian pacific overpopulated countries that also have no intention of slowing down.

It's been convenient to justify moving dirty production to high population third world countries to mask the excess use.  Ask yourself why the Chinese level "per capita" is even as close the American as it is, it sure as heck isn't because the Chinese people are getting to expend those resources on themselves.  That means when they do demand that same standard of living and waste the rate is going to increase again.

So it seems to me that you find it a very convenient measure for avoiding taking action, to be sure.

Quote
Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

True, I didn't though.  US industry should increase it's share because that's some of the cleanest industry in the world.

Quote
Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?  Wasteful yards?   How about excessively giant houses?  Fast food?  List could go on and on, but none of that shows up in the environmental laws focused on by the left.  Just continuing to trim the most pollution efficient production on the planet.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 27, 2019, 10:34:41 PM
Quote
China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita
China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This goes to what The Drake pointed out earlier, and to what is implicit in your position, that unless China actually limits its citizens' standard of living to something on the order of one quarter that of what US citizens enjoy, then the US should do nothing.

Quote
Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?
Oh, you were being serious when you wrote "No driving a personal car"?  So you are all for laws that outlaw the use of private vehicles, are you?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 28, 2019, 08:12:14 AM
Quote
The facts are that global warming essentially stopped in 2000  - often called "the pause"

Its all on how you pick your sources

Quote
New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.

Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.

According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.

Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Yes, sources matter. I went with the satellite record, directly from the data. You’re going with sources that adjust historical data to fit the theory. Really makes a difference.

Don’t you question how they all thought the pause was no big deal for a few years and that warming would restart and now, suddenly, the pause never actually existed? Problematic data always gets “adjusted” and, like magic, it fits the theory again. That’s not science.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 28, 2019, 10:21:29 AM
Quote
China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita
China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This goes to what The Drake pointed out earlier, and to what is implicit in your position, that unless China actually limits its citizens' standard of living to something on the order of one quarter that of what US citizens enjoy, then the US should do nothing.

Is it your opinion that China's pollution increases are primarily focused on improving the quality of life of its people?  Objectively false by the way.

If that were the case, my argument would be even more persuasive, as that represents a real increase in the amount of consumerism.  Putting that additional demand anywhere but the cleanest factories is clearly increasing pollution more than is necessary at a time when we are supposedly at crisis.

Again, you have no argument that you are helping the environment when you advocate any reduction at the cleanest factories that will be picked up at the dirtiest.  Zero.  None. Nada.

Pulling up a redistributionist argument does not fix a science flaw.

Quote
Quote
Like when I mentioned cutting back on cars?
Oh, you were being serious when you wrote "No driving a personal car"?  So you are all for laws that outlaw the use of private vehicles, are you?

I was serious when I pointed out that environmental advocates are big on imposing solutions on others while they continue their excessively wasteful personal ways.

I'm already a huge believer in mass transit.  I use it most every day, and I've used it for long distance trips (how many people have been on a train ride of over 8 hours).  But adopting one size rules won't work.  The American system works best when you give incentives to change behavior rather than penalties.  Outlawing cars will cause a massive disruption to every aspect of life here, but making travel between cities on trains, cheaper and more convenient, including figuring out local transportation needs on the other end?  That would be a game changer. 

In NYC there's a sub-way stop that has underground access to a Target store.  That's a huge convenience for people.  Why aren't malls designed around mass transit access?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 28, 2019, 10:29:57 AM
Quote
Yes, sources matter. I went with the satellite record, directly from the data. You’re going with sources that adjust historical data to fit the theory. Really makes a difference.

But isn't Climate modals dependent on all data, across earths time frame?

The earth as a ecosystem that humans are a part of, we do not stand apart our environment. I get it we don't wan't to do anything that could weaken our economic status.  (even though what drives market change) We need our stuff. And why should we do better even if we could while Johnny dickhead won't do his part. I hate that argument, one my parents never let me get away with but I guess things change. If Johnny is a asshat I'm excused to be a asshat as well.

Gandhi suggested we "be the change you want to see" as a kind of choice we each get to make. The reality we all choose but most 'choose" unconsciously and then moan, complain and blame... when what is created hurts us and inst' what we wanted. We create what we fear.

Quote
One way or responding to the story is to say, Climate change was always beyond our control. Global warming is inescapable. We will have to live a high-tech life, and eventually an extra-terrestrial life, if we want any forms of life – our species – to live even another million years. In that event, we may as well get on with it: go light on the humanities and heavy on the engineering and forget those silly treaties aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Another way to respond is to say, We don’t have forever. Much more than half the time of life on earth is spent. Why make it any worse or briefer than it hast to be? Let have more knowledge and less power. Let’s have more meaning and less control. Let’s have more truth, more birdsong, more reverential silence, and less jabber. You, your species, your entire evolutionary family and your planet will die tomorrow. How do you want to spend today?  - Learning to Die, Wisdom in the Age of Climate Crises – R Bringhurst & J Zwicky
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 28, 2019, 10:54:21 AM
rightleft22, I think Crunch's problem is not trusting how the data is adjusted.  As a non-scientist if you had a weather station that reported the following directly measured average temperatures over 10 years:  72, 72, 73, 72, 72, 71, 74, 72, 72, 72.  It seems pretty clear its flat, but when that gets added to the model "after adjustment" as the following:  68, 69, 71, 70, 71, 72, 74, 72, 73, 75 and now shows a clear warming trend what do you end up believing? 

The scientific case for adjustments on data is often plausible, but the adjustment trend seems to be supporting more of the warming case than the raw data, and that's a circumstance that clearly muddles the believability short term (long term it shouldn't be possible to "adjust" enough to maintain a reported non-existent trend - which is partially why failing to hit projections repeatedly is so damaging).

I personally, think the measurement data is still in the "early caveman" period of determining an accurate global temperature.   Take a walk through the history of temperature measurements, and how much human error is built in (even today, let alone just 50 years ago), and then add in how much extrapolation is required for any historical temperature measures (all of which are measured indirectly, based on our best theories - which may turn out not be remotely accurate).
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 28, 2019, 11:29:19 AM
Fenring, per capita is garbage because it doesn't reward efficiency.  If we are to believe that environmental destruction is at our door and we need serious proposals, production can only be measured by its environmental efficiency.  Having China produce more wastefully because they already have reproduced more wastefully is absolutely counterproductive to the goal of a better environment.

Why on Earth should we subsidize China producing 10 million cars at 40 million "pollution" by cutting production of 10 million cars in a US factory at 20 million "pollution" just because China has more people?

I'm going to have to agree with this.


CO2 per unit of GDP, or per unit of GDP as per PPP would be a far more reliable metric to benchmark against than "per capita CO2" can ever hope to be.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 28, 2019, 11:34:44 AM
Per capita is just a measure - it's an inconvenient measure for those who want to avoid taking action, to be sure.

Industry accounts for only 22% of US CO2 emissions, so of course, if one is being disingenuous, one would focus exclusively on that metric.

Whereas a more honest analysis would take into account the other 78% of US CO2 output, including transportation, electricity generation, residential and agriculture.

Wait, industry can function without transportation? On what planet? They're part and parcel of the same thing. They need transportation to access markets so they can obtain (input) goods, and they need transportation to get their products to market. They also need transportation to enable their workforce to actually work, and for that workforce to be fed, clothed, etc.

Also: Not counting Agriculture as industry in this case(CO2) is rather disingenuous. It is both one of the larger CO2 producers, and one of the biggest CO2 sinks.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 28, 2019, 11:44:43 AM
Quote
China, to increase it's pollution because it's "underutilizing" its per capita
China is also reducing its CO2 emissions as a proportion of its overall energy budget.  So while it is increasing emissions, it is actually reducing its fossil fuel usage as a proportion of the overall economy.

This has more to do with the type of coal natively available to China, the fact they have few to no developed native sources of petroleum, and much like the United States in the 1970's, they're tired of the brown sky outside. It's doubly troubling for them as they try to portray themselves as a global power, when all of the Western Nations have done away with their own "brown cloud" decades ago.

But you need to also keep in mind: Don't confuse their "war on the brown cloud" with their acknowledging climate change as any kind of meaningful concern for them. Being a centralized command and control economy, with limited private property rights, they're probably just drawing up engineering contingency plans for adaptation should things actually reach the point suggested in models. They're confident they'll be able to ride out the transition, it is highly unlikely to be worse than Mao Tse Tung's great leap forward in terms of cost in lives domestically after all.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on June 28, 2019, 12:30:16 PM
Quote
Wait, industry can function without transportation? On what planet?
More than a little dishonest to excise the very next sentence where I addressed that, isn't it?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on June 28, 2019, 01:11:18 PM
the difference between the US and China is that China actually has 5, 10 and 20 years plans to aim for. The World Intellectual Property Indicators shows China way ahead in patent applications in the development of green technologies.  If the US is not carefule it will be left in the dust

A transition to Green economy isn't just about climate change its also about future economic prosperity and national security.


https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

Quote
China is implementing significant policies in multiple sectors to address climate change, and also aiming to restrict coal consumption. China’s 13th Five-Year Plan stipulates a maximum 58% share of coal in national energy consumption by 2020 (NDRC, 2016), among other energy related targets. China is implementing an emissions trading system, with first trades expected in 2020, and has also announced a mandatory renewable energy certificate scheme that sets targets for renewable energy for each province individually.

However, the Chinese government abruptly reduced subsidies for solar projects in 2018 and lifted a two-year ban on new coal-fired power plant construction.

China has not yet implemented sufficient policies addressing non-CO2 GHG emissions (CH4, N2O, HFCs etc.) Under current policy projections, 23 – 25% of China’s GHG emissions in 2030 will be non-CO2 emissions. As the NDC acknowledges that addressing these gases is important, further policy action may be expected to address non-CO2 emissions as well.

Over 1.1 million electric vehicles were sold in China in 2018—a 2018 market share of 4.2% - achieving an aim of the transport section of the formerly called “Made in China 2025” policy initiative two years early. (Chinese officials have backed away from the “Made in China 2025” name over the past months after international criticism, but the underlying initiative appears to still stand). China has both subsidies and tax exemptions that apply to new energy vehicles, which are expected to make up 10% of annual sales in 2019 and 12% in 20
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on June 28, 2019, 03:07:22 PM
the difference between the US and China is that China actually has 5, 10 and 20 years plans to aim for.

This is why I find these debates troubling.  Believing that China's plans (all of which increase pollution) are somehow more real than an entire legal and regulatory framework in the US is almost nonsensical.  The Paris Accord was nonsense that did no good, promises to increase pollution being lauded as good things.  Meanwhile the US has had an Environmental Protection Agency for decades, and has thousands of laws and regulations that through which it has self imposed standards that directly protect the environment and force better environmental efficiency.  Those are real gains. 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on June 28, 2019, 03:10:41 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem.  ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 28, 2019, 03:47:11 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem.  ::)

China is seeking energy independence, and is now trying to transition to a cleaner infrastructure which doesn't create a brown cloud. Renewables have reached a price point where it is cost-competitive with other options. So once again, do not confuse China's use of renewables with China actually being concerned about climate change.

Likewise, China is aware enough that the rest of the developed world is concerned enough about it that they're willing to spend Billions upon Billions of dollars on things that they think will mitigate it. Further, they're willing to hamper their own economies in the name of mitigating this perceived gigantic risk. While China is not going to consider doing so themselves.

Why wouldn't China try to get ahead of the curve on the R&D side of that in the interest of selling those things to other nations? It helps them gain prestige internationally, even if they don't actually give a ____ about it. It helps them generate more revenue to spur further economic growth domestically. It helps further hamper their competition as well. So again, why wouldn't China be trying to be at the head of the pack on much of this?

It also has benefits in helping them in their current war on their domestic brown cloud problem, without needing to rely on assistance from other nations.

China is doing what China is doing because China sees benefit to China, and harm to others, by doing so. China also is "buying in" on Nuclear in a big way, because they're being starkly rational about things. Unlike much of the western world, the state of the Nuclear Power industry in the West is pathetic at this point, China is either about to surpass, or already has surpassed on that front as well. Because NIMBY rules over here.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2019, 10:04:37 AM
rightleft22, I think Crunch's problem is not trusting how the data is adjusted.  As a non-scientist if you had a weather station that reported the following directly measured average temperatures over 10 years:  72, 72, 73, 72, 72, 71, 74, 72, 72, 72.  It seems pretty clear its flat, but when that gets added to the model "after adjustment" as the following:  68, 69, 71, 70, 71, 72, 74, 72, 73, 75 and now shows a clear warming trend what do you end up believing? 

The scientific case for adjustments on data is often plausible, but the adjustment trend seems to be supporting more of the warming case than the raw data, and that's a circumstance that clearly muddles the believability short term (long term it shouldn't be possible to "adjust" enough to maintain a reported non-existent trend - which is partially why failing to hit projections repeatedly is so damaging).

I personally, think the measurement data is still in the "early caveman" period of determining an accurate global temperature.   Take a walk through the history of temperature measurements, and how much human error is built in (even today, let alone just 50 years ago), and then add in how much extrapolation is required for any historical temperature measures (all of which are measured indirectly, based on our best theories - which may turn out not be remotely accurate).

It’s even worse than what you lay out. The entire medieval warming period is erased. It existed for decades in scientific records and was memory holed when it became inconvenient to global warming theory. It’s really amazing.

But the pause is a very recent thing. Temperatures went flat around 1998. We were told it was temporary, we were told it would definitely start to increasing again soon. Then we were told it had to be a pause for a certain length of time before it contradicted global warming theory (15-20 years IIRC). By 2017 it was still flat and the last 2 years trended sharply down. Now we are told that pause we all talked about the last decade or so never even existed. Like the medieval warm period, it just suddenly disappears.

This is not science. Erasing data that contradicts theory is not science. Going with popular vote is not science. Suppressing dissent is not science. There is nothing scientific about global warming theory at this point. It’s literally modern Lysenkoism.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 29, 2019, 03:15:00 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables/chinas-2018-renewable-power-capacity-up-12-percent-on-year-idUSKCN1PM0HM

China: 2018 renewable power up 12% in one year. Outspending the US in renewables 3:1
US: Put tariffs on Chinese solar exports making it less viable.

Yup, China is the problem.  ::)

China is seeking energy independence, and is now trying to transition to a cleaner infrastructure which doesn't create a brown cloud. Renewables have reached a price point where it is cost-competitive with other options. So once again, do not confuse China's use of renewables with China actually being concerned about climate change.

Likewise, China is aware enough that the rest of the developed world is concerned enough about it that they're willing to spend Billions upon Billions of dollars on things that they think will mitigate it. Further, they're willing to hamper their own economies in the name of mitigating this perceived gigantic risk. While China is not going to consider doing so themselves.

Why wouldn't China try to get ahead of the curve on the R&D side of that in the interest of selling those things to other nations? It helps them gain prestige internationally, even if they don't actually give a ____ about it. It helps them generate more revenue to spur further economic growth domestically. It helps further hamper their competition as well. So again, why wouldn't China be trying to be at the head of the pack on much of this?

It also has benefits in helping them in their current war on their domestic brown cloud problem, without needing to rely on assistance from other nations.

China is doing what China is doing because China sees benefit to China, and harm to others, by doing so. China also is "buying in" on Nuclear in a big way, because they're being starkly rational about things. Unlike much of the western world, the state of the Nuclear Power industry in the West is pathetic at this point, China is either about to surpass, or already has surpassed on that front as well. Because NIMBY rules over here.

If China is leading the globe in development, production, and use of renewable energy sources I have to say I don't really care why they're doing it.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 29, 2019, 09:13:56 PM
Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on. :P
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DJQuag on June 30, 2019, 05:16:19 PM
Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on. :P

Except if they keep on course, carbon sources will be less viable. Not only politically but economically. In what scenario do you see China throwing billions into developing renewable energy and then marrying itself to carbon once the technology pans out?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 30, 2019, 08:10:55 PM
Until they refuse to stop using Carbon later on. :P

Except if they keep on course, carbon sources will be less viable. Not only politically but economically. In what scenario do you see China throwing billions into developing renewable energy and then marrying itself to carbon once the technology pans out?

They're also continuing to develop carbon tech. They can also operate on multiple tracks at once. "Clean coal" is likely on their work list also. They have plenty of coal, they just haven't bothered with making sure it doesn't pollute(that and the stuff they have isn't very clean burning to start with).

As it stands, they're hungry for energy in general, so anything that can make more of it and can be deployed quickly is a winner in their books right now.

Stuff that can make energy without needing a large logistics chain is even better(where wind/solar is strong). Stuff that makes energy without needing to rely on foreign sources for fuel is even better.

Cost isn't very important to them right now. How quickly they can build it is more important. You can also count on them not going all in on renewables once they're no longer trying to catch up to demand.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on June 30, 2019, 11:26:37 PM
They're also continuing to develop carbon tech. They can also operate on multiple tracks at once. "Clean coal" is likely on their work list also. They have plenty of coal, they just haven't previously bothered with making sure it doesn't pollute(that and the stuff they have isn't very clean burning to start with).

Fixing an omission.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 01, 2019, 10:03:27 AM
So we're playing counter factuals?  A country that doesn't care about pollution at all, China, that is pursuing clean tech for the same reason its pursuing a monopoly on steel, 5G, and just about every other high tech or strategic market is the hero?  Just because they are a "leader" in output of clean tech - better not ask if they were clean in the production of their clean tech or the extraction of the heavy metals that they're using, no seriously better not ask if you want to play the counter factual game.

Meanwhile the country that has an actual history of self imposing economically damaging pollution controls is the bad guy.  The country that actual developed the intellectual property that China for the most part just stole is the bad guy. 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 01, 2019, 12:38:24 PM
Quote
In 2017, renewable energy comprised 36.6% of China’s total installed electric power capacity, and 26.4% of total power generation

Quote
Renewable energy accounted for 12.2 % of total primary energy consumption[3] and 14.94 % of the domestically produced electricity in the United States in 2016

Keep trying to demonize China, the numbers just don't support it. Did they recklessly install dirty carbon energy in the past? Yes, they did. But now they are manufacturing and deploying clean power generation.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 01, 2019, 02:00:39 PM
So you're going to continue with counterfactuals, and narrow focus:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ (https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/)

China has promised to keep increasing carbon production until 2030 and then slow down.  They are building new coal plants, and those plants are no where near as clean as a US or EU coal plant.  So keep patting yourself on the back because you can point to a "green" statistic in a regime that is single handedly the biggest polluter and on pace to single handedly reversing any amount of cuts that the US and EU could produce.

Or how about this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#38adad8c628c (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#38adad8c628c)

Note the trend lines.  China's is a skyrocket, the US and the EU lines are both declining, but hey sure China's the real hero here.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 01, 2019, 02:01:55 PM
Since when has science said, "Well, we don't really think the way you went about your research is ethical enough for our standards.  We're going to ignore and shun the fruits of your labor and urge everyone else to do so as well."  ?   ::)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 01, 2019, 02:24:36 PM
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/

Note that the US is listed as critically insufficient compared to China's highly insufficient.

I never said China was a hero, I'm just saying it is a pot-kettle situation. It's like dumping toxic waste into a river for decades, then getting mad at the new guy on the block for following your example.

Perhaps you've heard of leading by example, the way that the EU countries are doing. And yeah, I don't give 2 **** if that means we take a hit in GDP growth.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 01, 2019, 03:02:19 PM
Lol, yep, if the US went to net zero it would be a step in the right direction.  I can't make you see reality.  The fact is the US was the world's biggest polluter and that was bad for the whole world.  This is not however a situation where we can afford, China, then India, then Indonesia, then the African countries all decided to take the same road the US did.

It's not a matter of fairness.  If the environmental panic is correct, it's just a done deal.  China's policies, if the world is really in crisis, will literally kill the world.  Making excuses for it because the US did it first is not science it's politics.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 01, 2019, 03:09:07 PM
And all that leads to...

Develop "green tech" as fast as possible, and sacrifice here, in the US to get it done.  Then see to it we are providing it, when they don't themselves, so they DON'T take our path.   

Ideally selling it and recouping our expenses and maybe profiting.  Also improving our own circumstances at home. 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 01, 2019, 03:10:19 PM
Of course it is politics, that's what's always stood in the way of doing one darn thing about the situation. In politics, there is give and take. A good agreement is one that every participant grumbles about being unfair. Past agreements recognize that it is a non-starter to force developing nations to bear the brunt of dealing with the crisis. What we could offer is drastic reductions in our use in exchange for holding steady in China, as one idea. There are other options as well. You could take the forcing route, and sanction China while unilaterally reducing at home.

At least you acknowledge that we were primarily responsible for creating this mess, I appreciate the intellectual honesty.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 01, 2019, 03:25:32 PM
And all that leads to...

Develop "green tech" as fast as possible, and sacrifice here, in the US to get it done.

Sacrifice?  No, it leads to encouraging production where ever it happens to be cleanest to put polluters out of business. 

It's really simple, the people of the world want/need stuff.  You can either kill them all off, put them under repressive governments that deny them stuff, or build the stuff in the cleanest manner possible.  Any other decision is not based on saving the environment - because it won't.

Quote
Then see to it we are providing it, when they don't themselves, so they DON'T take our path.   

Ideally selling it and recouping our expenses and maybe profiting.  Also improving our own circumstances at home.

The fact is these policies are grossly warped by liberal guilt and a desparate need for economic redistribution.  They are not about the environment.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 01, 2019, 03:57:35 PM
I've said before.  I'm a terrible environmentalist.  I'm... IDK a techno purist?  Anything to keep the innovation ball rolling in the right direction.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on July 01, 2019, 06:40:33 PM
Perhaps you've heard of leading by example, the way that the EU countries are doing. And yeah, I don't give 2 **** if that means we take a hit in GDP growth.

And THAT is why China is "all in" on clean energy tech and the production companies they can snap up. Because they know the EU and the United States will knowingly pay a premium for use of that tech, and pay a premium for the opportunity to do so, even when they have numerous other more economical options available to them.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Pete at Home on July 01, 2019, 10:29:09 PM
I've got to ask, is this kind of measurement commonly used? Can people argue that cutting corporate taxes is good without nailing down the precise perfect number? Or is it just an axiom that cutting them is fantastic, and the more the better?

Taxes, is that science? No, it's politics. You're not making a reasonable comparison.

But yeah, you can talk to people and ask them what taxes should be and often get a number. In fact, we set what we think is the perfect number all the time. Sometimes people disagree and there's a debate, taxes get changed to another very precise number. Have you ever done your income taxes? Did they have a precise number for you? You bet they did.


If you check a university class list, Mathematics is a Science, and taxation is mathematics.

Climate change is science but climate change policy and climate change disinformation are political.

Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on July 03, 2019, 10:20:40 PM
June 29, 1989, Associated Press, (link) (https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0).

Quote
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The whole global warming movement, full of *censored* for 30 years.



Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 04, 2019, 09:30:39 AM
All causes/parties have their nutjobs.  That is a good find though.  "senior U.N. environmental official"  I mean, it was probably their "job" to get people worked up to change policy / hand over money, but still. 

Alarmist almost never help their cause, even if the sky IS falling.  (which it almost never is..)  ;)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 04, 2019, 10:45:01 AM
Crunch is wrong again. Detailed description of what the 1989 report actually predicted follows.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 04, 2019, 12:30:19 PM
That sounded like a quote, rather than a report.  FWIW
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 04, 2019, 12:34:28 PM
Quote
Claim
A 1989 Associated Press article predicted disaster if "global warming" went unchecked.
Rating
True

From your link.  You could agree or expand on the link saying he's (also) trying to mischaracterize it, but even the link says it's factually accurate.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: ScottF on July 04, 2019, 01:06:07 PM
You guys are being obtuse. Back then it wasn’t settled science. Today it is.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on July 04, 2019, 03:07:24 PM
Crunch is wrong again. Detailed description of what the 1989 report actually predicted follows.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-a-1989-u-n-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-article-authentic/

Very top of your link:

Quote
Claim

A 1989 Associated Press article predicted disaster if "global warming" went unchecked.

Rating

True

That actually confirms my point.  8)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 05, 2019, 02:26:07 PM
Binary crunch. Can't read past 140 characters. The true part was that those words were published. The next several thousand describe why the conclusion is wrong.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on July 05, 2019, 02:32:21 PM
Binary crunch. Can't read past 140 characters. The true part was that those words were published. The next several thousand describe why the conclusion is wrong.

Honestly the article reads like a bunch of double-talk to me. It knows it has to say the content is true even while going out of its way to show how it's really not true anyhow. And their analysis is a goalpost shift anyhow. If a scientist's claim in 1988 is that temperatures will increase by 1-7 degrees in 30 years, and that if it goes badly this *could* mean trouble by the year 2000, he shouldn't sensationalize his own circumspection by throwing in the comment that by the year 2000 it will go "beyond human control". It's the old motte and bailey once again, where a doomsday prediction is backed up by "oh well I only said that it *could* happen..."
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 05, 2019, 03:25:40 PM
You are presuming that the scientist is the sensationalist. Isn't it more likely that the ap reporter plucked the most outrageous line from a 15 minute interview?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 05, 2019, 03:36:46 PM
I think what we're saying is, Crunch's assertions may miss the larger point, but he's not wrong, there ARE doomsayers out there making a mess of things, and have been for awhile.  Your own link demonstrates that.   ::)

Claiming that's not the case simply compounds the problems those sensationalists are making towards achieving real advancements.  It ain't easy to motivate skeptics or the selfish, particularly if you squander credibility.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on July 05, 2019, 03:51:52 PM
That is not how I read his assertions. He says that the science is wrong because of many failed predictions.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on July 06, 2019, 10:16:46 AM
I say the science is suspect. Anytime a theory is put forth and empirical data contradicts it then the theory is flawed. But warmists don’t see it that way. Instead, you delete or disregard conflicting data until you can torture it into a pseudoscience argument for AGW (as you link demonstrates)  or simply memory hole it (like the medieval warming period).

That’s not science. What global warming advocates are doing is as far from science as it gets.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 07, 2019, 10:15:30 AM
Well, maybe not the furthest from science you can get... 
:D
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 09:46:48 AM
Not sure Crunch is wrong.  I think computer based modelling and prediction may not actually be science.  It may be something new and different.  I mean does it really follow the Scientific method?

Quote
[The scientific method] involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

How much "rigorous skepticism" is permitted in a field with a "consensus" where critics and doubters are routinely labelled as "deniers" and extremists, that are even ostracized and occasionally forced out of positions and/or lose grants.  In a field where data (ie observations) is routinely adjusted, which potentially inserts cognitive assumption risk rather than eliminate it.

There is no real experiment and testing, that's why they added computer modelling - to pretend there were real tests and experiments.  This to me is the real crux of the problem.  If the model is a real proxy for the actual environment you could get good results, but if it's wrong in any way (which given the hundreds of thousands of, if not millions, of aggregated inputs, is far more likely), you would only get a relevant result by coincidence.

I think Crunch would argue that the refinement (or elimination) step is also lacking, particularly where it appears that the data gets changed if it doesn't support the hypothesis, and the hypothesis gets "backwards modified" to match the data (ie they revise the projections from a point in the past rather than going forward).

Honestly, the "models" should be seen as a hypothesis, and there is no real experiment running.  I guess I don't think it really is Science just based on Science.  It's an application of science but that doesn't mean it's false or won't end up with a predictive power.  I do find the way things are presented and represented about the past (and the way the past keeps changing) to be a material impediment to trusting their predictions about the future.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 09:55:12 AM
First, one would expect things to be adjusted (with new data).
Second, the "experiment and testing" with computer models comes when they correctly or incorrectly predict actual events down the road.  Some models are obviously wrong, as Crunch points out.  To me at least, that doesn't throw the whole field out as "not science"...

That said, all of your points is why I tend to focus on expanding our capabilities to manipulate our environment as we see fit instead of just accepting that we will do SOME harm if we want to maintain the comforts and way of life we've become accustom to.  (and that others are still trying to attain.)  I don't like sucking down exhaust fumes in a traffic jam.  I like clear blue skies (when they happen around here...)  I like clean water.  Those green growy things are OK too when I go outside.  ;) 

I prefer putting effort into improving those things I like without telling me I need to tear down my city and rebuild into archologies and ration power and take shorter showers...  I don't much care that the weatherman gets it wrong.  Be it a 7 day forecast or a 20 year prediction.  :P
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 10:11:35 AM
How much "rigorous skepticism" is permitted in a field with a "consensus" where critics and doubters are routinely labelled as "deniers" and extremists

To be fair this is more or less what Kuhn describes as science in normal times, where the majority adopts a model and those who reject it are "fringe scientists" or worse.

Quote
that are even ostracized and occasionally forced out of positions and/or lose grants.

This isn't so much about how the science is done as how the business of science is done. Although I agree that an extensive study about the connectin between the business model and the actual work would be interesting. Maybe someone's done it, but I haven't ever made it my priority to check on this, predominantly because I don't follow journals closely.

Quote
There is no real experiment and testing, that's why they added computer modelling - to pretend there were real tests and experiments.  This to me is the really crux of the problem.

Although I sort of agree with you I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, because this objection could be levied towards several areas in physics which for the last 40-50 years have stirred controversy for being untestable thought experiments. I suppose the fundamental difference is that these areas of physics have been devoid of experiment mostly due to deficiencies in our engineering technology, rather than due to the innate nature of the methodology.

Quote
I think Crunch would argue that the refinement (or elimination) step is also lacking, particularly where it appears that the data gets changed if it doesn't support the hypothesis, and the hypothesis gets "backwards modified" to match the data (ie they revise the projections from a point in the past rather than going forward).

I don't even think this is so bad, *if* it means moving any possible pieces on the board to see where your theory has gone wrong. But what you're getting at is that this is a deliberate means of avoiding being honest and fudging the numbers, then I agree that's pseudoscience.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 10:49:28 AM
First, one would expect things to be adjusted (with new data).

One would expect them to refine or discard the hypothesis, not to adjust the data.  Certainly not to rerun their "past" predictions to make them match the new results.  If someone did any of that in a real science their work would be discredited.

Quote
Second, the "experiment and testing" with computer models comes when they correctly or incorrectly predict actual events down the road.

I'm sorry, that's neither an experiment or a test.  What was the variable they manipulated?  There isn't one.  How did they control for other variables?  They didn't.  What was the "experiment"?

Is a successful stock picker engaging in science just cause they were correct in their prediction?  The fact is there are more unsuccessful pickers, but our bias draws us to the ones that were correct.  But give them enough time and they almost always come to an environment where they return to average or even lose. 

Prediction is a complicated business, and it is based on science, but that doesn't make the predictions an experiment or science.

Quote
Some models are obviously wrong, as Crunch points out.  To me at least, that doesn't throw the whole field out as "not science"...

I'm not "throwing it out," I just don't think it is Science.  Predictive analytics sounds like a better fit.

Quote
That said, all of your points is why I tend to focus on expanding our capabilities to manipulate our environment as we see fit instead of just accepting that we will do SOME harm if we want to maintain the comforts and way of life we've become accustom to.  (and that others are still trying to attain.)  I don't like sucking down exhaust fumes in a traffic jam.  I like clear blue skies (when they happen around here...)  I like clean water.  Those green growy things are OK too when I go outside.  ;) 

I agree with this.  I think the agenda gets confused because on the "green" side you have a very vocal portion that rejects preserving modern life - the "liberal guilt" faction that believes we are bad wardens and hates corporate America.  For them a "solution" that involves adapting to or modifying our environment without hardship and cuts is a failure, same as doing nothing.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 12:44:00 PM
so...
Environment-ologists not Ennviornment-icists
:)

You cannot measure ice caps melting or atmospheric trapping of heat or solar ray penetration levels or ocean currents and temperature gradients sufficiently in a lab so lets not bother studying it at all? 

I get that data can be abused to fit politics, but what point are you trying to get at?  I'm all for getting bad science out of politics.  I think that part of it is rather uncontroversial.  But just calling it "not science" seems to go beyond that into the realm of, "Lets ignore it all and do what we want."

And we ARE bad wardens... but I like modern life.  I'd make a sad renaissance peasant and drafting by oil lamp with T-squares and boards to design much less ambitious projects would take some serious adjustments...  I suppose my doctor would like that I was getting more exercise, as long as I didn't need any of those silly industrially produced prescriptions or energy wasting diagnostics.  :P

Politics gets a lot easier when you ignore the kooks on the fringe.  But damn do they get loud at times.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on July 08, 2019, 12:59:12 PM
Quote
I agree with this.  I think the agenda gets confused because on the "green" side you have a very vocal portion that rejects preserving modern life - the "liberal guilt" faction that believes we are bad wardens and hates corporate America.  For them a "solution" that involves adapting to or modifying our environment without hardship and cuts is a failure, same as doing nothing.

Is this true?

Its true that the extreme voices are always the loudest and the ones we tend to forces on if only to maintain our own positions - by pointing to the extreme of the "other" side the argument seems to that gives permission to throw out the baby with the bath water = do nothing.

I personally don't know anyone that holds the above position.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 01:13:22 PM
Quote
Is this true?
It's a matter of degree.  I don't know anyone who fits that exactly... 
But let's just say that if there was a magical button that would turn the clock back on modern life, there are a couple people I'd make sure never got near it.  Just in case.  :P

Mostly the people I know slant heavily towards the nerd spectrum.  We needsis our precious electricity!

Then again, oddly those who seem most vocal are also heavily invested into social media... where would one do their posturing with all that communication and shallow reinforcement stripped away?   ;D
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 01:26:22 PM
You cannot measure ice caps melting or atmospheric trapping of heat or solar ray penetration levels or ocean currents and temperature gradients sufficiently in a lab so lets not bother studying it at all?

Show me anywhere I've ever said that.

Quote
I get that data can be abused to fit politics, but what point are you trying to get at?  I'm all for getting bad science out of politics.  I think that part of it is rather uncontroversial.  But just calling it "not science" seems to go beyond that into the realm of, "Lets ignore it all and do what we want."

No.  My unstated point is that I'm concerned about appeals to authority (where there isn't authority) and the religious-ation of Science.  You should be persuaded by science because it's objectively demonstrable not because it's SCIENCE.

In this case, 95% of the arguementers on climate change don't actually understand how the conclusions they are repeating were reached.  They don't understand that this "Science" is non-experimental and is built on computer models that incorporate massive amounts of assumption.  They hear "Science" and they think it's the same as an experimental science.

This is not the only branch of science that has this problem.  Others are almost completely observational.  At least with climate science we have a lot of observational data and the ability to run experiments on individual components.  Where we "lose" the certainty is when we try to model the entire climate.

I personally don't know anyone that holds the above position.

You don't know anyone that opposes carbon sequestration?  That protests any emissions - or thinks that every coal plant should be shut down?  I mean heck the Green New Deal just proposed 0% emissions energy sources, did you miss that?  That's not just anyone that's a chunk of your Congressional representatives.

Quote
Is this true?
But let's just say that if there was a magical button that would turn the clock back on modern life, there are a couple people I'd make sure never got near it.  Just in case.  :P

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are Amish or Luddites (though some are).  The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

When you go to weigh the economic benefits versus the ecological harms (which is  a requirement under the EPA), the scale is always weighted to "infinite" on the ecological harm side.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: rightleft22 on July 08, 2019, 01:58:57 PM
Quote
The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

That seems to be a huge assumption. IMO again I know no one that holds those opinions. I hear them refereed to in online, primary as excuses to invalidate all environmental arguments or planing but no one that actually holds them.

I think a problem lies in the way social media arguments progress. Its the loudest extreme voices being responding to making it appear as if the extreme views are held by all those on the 'other side'

There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the environmental augments as well as just plain stupid and there are not the voices we should be listening to.

I personal care very much that China will open a dirtier coal plant however I don't think its a argument about why we should or should not continue to build them. At least its not a environmental one (I hate the argument that be cause bob is a asshat its ok for me to be a asshat) though could be a economical one.  The problem here is that we tend to confuse the arguments - economical verses environmental and lose all balance.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on July 08, 2019, 02:00:22 PM
They don't understand that this "Science" is non-experimental and is built on computer models that incorporate massive amounts of assumption.  They hear "Science" and they think it's the same as an experimental science.

I've always been a reader about science, and it's become grating how the word "science" is thrown around to mean almost anything, and especially things of a faddish nature or that support certain presuppositions. One particular trend that I find troubling is that the study of just about anything to do with humans is often called "science", such as for instance sociology. So a university department will have someone studying trends in behavior, will have a pre-set dogma associated with this, and will call their beliefs "science" and will call themself a "social scientist", or even worse sometimes just "a scientist". The word becomes so sullied when used in this manner IMO that saying "science!" is now becoming equivalent to "my team says X". No wonder so many people distrust science, when in fact what they should be distrusting is people. The fact that it's people who do science is a very special reason why good science takes this into account to eliminate the human factor from the results.

Quote
The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

A related area that's interesting to look at is recycling. Sure, a segment on Penn & Teller might open up eyes about how much recycling really achieves, but it doesn't seem to have altered the mainstream 'consensus' that recycling tons of stuff helps the planet a lot. But as far as I can tell there are so many conditions that would have to be met for recycling to really work that are too arduous for average families to achieve, and the mess that's thrown into recycling unusable, that I wonder if there's a comprehensive study around about what it really accomplishes. And putting trash into landfills isn't even really a carbon footprint issue; it's more of an aesthetic one. But I routinely see people running the sink for a long time to clean one dirty plastic container, and the suggestion that "this may be causing the environment more harm than just throwing it out" doesn't seem to register. I don't actually know for a fact that it does (i.e. quantitatively) but I'm pretty sure that using gallons of water to *try to* recycle one oily jar is going to create a negative net carbon footprint.

That's just one tiny issue, but it does reflect on the fact that the "do something!" attitude might yield very zealously held dictums that may not reflect well in practice. "Doing nothing is better than what you're doing" tends to make people upset when they think they're helping. And hey, we were shown that already in Oedipus Rex, where thinking you can save the situation when you lack the broader picture is likely to cause more trouble than it fixes.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on July 08, 2019, 02:10:54 PM
Quote
In this case, 95% of the arguementers on climate change don't actually understand how the conclusions they are repeating were reached.
I would say closer to 100%, given that the internet has given anybody with a keyboard a point of view that can be expressed fairly readily.  And this problem is, of course, common to both sides of the debate.

What I see thrown around so often now is equating climate science with modelling.  However, there are hundreds of lines of inquiry that support unprecedented warming having nothing to do with modelling. Biological changes, ice extent changes, glacier changes, oceanic changes, land based temperature changes, satellite MSU changes, jet stream changes, tropopause changes, seasonal weather changes... and the list goes on and on. You could discount any number of these sets of metrics without affecting the overall conclusion. 

You can also completely misrepresent and misunderstand how the models are created and what the models are used for, and also not affect these conclusions in any significant way.  But that never seems to stop people from making the argument that how the climate is changing is uncertain because ... models!
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 02:11:13 PM
Quote
Show me anywhere I've ever said that.
Never said you did.  I was just trying to understand where your line of reasoning lead to.  I get it.  Don’t worship science as a label.  But are you proposing better methodology?  I think you’re sellin this “95%” short.  My point is the modeling IS the science.  (or part of it anyhow)  To say it’s not, or that is faulty science is throwing me for a loop.  What experiments do you want them to do?  What would be conclusive to you?  Is there something that can/should be done to result in “settled science”? 

Opposes carbon sequestration? Nope…
Any emissions?  I know some who hope we can achieve it someday, as sorta an ideal to strive for.

Shutting down coal?  Now there I think I could find some people.  Hell, I’m probably in that group.  But I’d have cooling towers and fuel rods up in their place…  So I’m sure I lose some points off my merit badge there.

Now that’s not to say I’ve not heard all these positions and more.  But it’s nobody I associate with or talk to.  I see them online, and see the talking points.  But I don’t’ know them… 
Quote
They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).
This is an odd point.  First, they probably DO care, but they sure as poop ain’t gonna fly to China to protest there.  :) 

Paint the US as a bad guy?  Well… we were.  We’re kinda an ex-con at this point.  We show signs of reforming and back slide a little now and then, but it’s looking good on us being reformed.  Yes, there are other “bad guys” out there right now.  Up to the same naughty stuff we once did and at some pretty grand scales in some cases. 

On the off chance the “kooks” are right, and we may reach some cascade of “bad”, I’m willing to say we can afford to tamper with the scales in the name of caution.  After all, doing so is an almost guaranteed winner of an investment down the road.  I suppose we can milk a few more decades out of easier economic winds and let someone else reap the rewards of that investing.  After all, we’re the least likely to suffer for it.  We’ve already got (most of) what we want.  It’s the others struggling to catch up that are the REAL problem.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 05:13:03 PM
Quote
The biggest faction is opposed to things that they don't easily connect to their personal lives.  They drive an SUV to a power plant to protest its emissions.  They want that coal plant shut down (and don't care that a dirtier one will be opened in China).  Right now many are just focused on painting the US as a bad guy, others are concerned about the global case.

That seems to be a huge assumption. IMO again I know no one that holds those opinions.

Really?  Do you know "no one" that "recycles" in a single stream because separating it into six stacks is too much hassle?  Or that supported a move to single stream?

No one that that sprays pesticides on their grass yards?  (just having a grass yard is environmentally bad).

No one that is angry because they can't do what they want with their back yard just because it borders on protected wetlands (I know hard core lefties that throw a fit about this issue, where they don't view the muddy trees are as a real habitat).

Do you know anyone that refuses to fly because of the pollution?

Quote
I personal care very much that China will open a dirtier coal plant however I don't think its a argument about why we should or should not continue to build them. At least its not a environmental one (I hate the argument that be cause bob is a asshat its ok for me to be a asshat) though could be a economical one.  The problem here is that we tend to confuse the arguments - economical verses environmental and lose all balance.

Except the Bob is an asshat argument is literally the one the environmental lobby is behind.  Just make bob the US and "me" China, and you've pretty much paraphrased what TheDrake was saying above.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 05:35:25 PM
Quote
Show me anywhere I've ever said that.
Never said you did.  I was just trying to understand where your line of reasoning lead to.  I get it.  Don’t worship science as a label.  But are you proposing better methodology?  I think you’re sellin this “95%” short.  My point is the modeling IS the science.  (or part of it anyhow)  To say it’s not, or that is faulty science is throwing me for a loop.

I think as we discuss this I'm becoming more convinced that modeling is not science and that this is where a lot of the problem arises in this discussion. 

Data processing and predictive analytics are tools, they are applications of science.  What makes a monte carlo simulation run on a stock portfolio not science and the same tool run on environmental data suddenly science?  Is it just inherent in your data, that if you run analytics on "science stuff" you get science?

The models are logical systems, they don't create any information, they can't, they just identify connections that are not inherently obvious to the human eye.  Without observation where's the science?  Sure the people studying this can take the models and go do science, but the models themselves are no more science than the data itself. 

This has nothing to do with fault, or invalidity. 

Quote
What experiments do you want them to do?  What would be conclusive to you?  Is there something that can/should be done to result in “settled science”?

Settled science of what?  I think my original charge was that we'd need instellar travel so that we could test theories with something other than an N of 1.

Or just that there is warming?

Or that man generated carbon alone out of the millions of daily impacts that apply to the climate is the primary cause of a warming trend?   

Quote
Opposes carbon sequestration? Nope…
Any emissions?  I know some who hope we can achieve it someday, as sorta an ideal to strive for.

I only mention that one cause there was a poster on here a long time ago (maybe a couple) that argued that carbon sequestration was immoral.

Quote
Paint the US as a bad guy?  Well… we were.  We’re kinda an ex-con at this point.

It seems to be a tenant on the left that the US is primarily an evil force in the world.  They rejected the idea of American exceptionalism and went out the other side to the "US can do no good."  The fact is we are one of the best guys on almost every area of liberal/progressive thought, on human rights, on the advancement of equality and justice, and yes, on the environment.

We have literally been harming our business interests with self imposed sanctions for decades.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 06:00:34 PM
Quote
No one that is angry because they can't do what they want with their back yard just because it borders on protected wetlands
I wish mine was…  Then I wouldn’t have the lawn police telling me I got to mow now… or else!  (happened twice…)  :P
I guess if someone thought sequestration was somehow going to contaminate something it could be immoral?  Sounds like a loony toon to me, but who knows.  I don’t know much about sequestration techniques. 
Quote
It seems to be a tenant on the left that the US is primarily an evil force in the world.
There’s some of that baked in there but the key word is “primarily”.  I don’t think that part is fair.  What most I talk to would be firmly in the Spider-Man camp.  With great power comes great responsibility.  And we’re pretty frickin powerful right now.  We are out ahead, we have made a mess of things in some cases, we know better now.  So…  Easy/dirty path or trickier/cleaner path?  Time to see some more of that American exceptionalism again. 
While some pat themselves on the back “the left” wants to keep being… well, progressive. 
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on July 08, 2019, 06:18:43 PM
Well if you're going with the Marvel analogy how did you miss Ironman?  Great power, great responsibility, decadent life style, reforming from dealing in weapons?

Progressivism really troubles me in a way that classical liberalism didn't.  The closest I can come to explaining it is that progressives act like the moral conservatives of yesteryear, they impose morality based laws and harshly punish transgression.  And many times the laws are of the unworkable "I'll know when I see standard" that actually applied in pornography cases for a while.  I mean I've listed it out before, but the new left really doesn't believe in civil liberties (when applied to their opponents) and believes that they can use their own "hyper-liberties" as a sword to overrun those of the other side.  When you add in America is always evil on top of that you get AOC and Anti-fa as the new normal.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on July 08, 2019, 06:42:31 PM
Careful now.  Starting to exhibit symptoms of the other strain related to TDS...
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on July 12, 2019, 09:34:01 AM
Quote
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

Quote
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

Quote
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

Money shot:

Quote
"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

AGW is a hoax.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2019, 09:39:46 AM
Oooh,Cosmic Rays are back on the table again?

Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

Sunspot activity has been higher than typical for the past ~100 years(on average), and increased sunspot activity means fewer cosmic rays, which means fewer clouds, which means a higher planetary albedo, which means more heat absorbed by solar irradiation rather than reflected back into space by clouds.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2019, 09:43:33 AM
Progressivism really troubles me in a way that classical liberalism didn't.  The closest I can come to explaining it is that progressives act like the moral conservatives of yesteryear, they impose morality based laws and harshly punish transgression.  And many times the laws are of the unworkable "I'll know when I see standard" that actually applied in pornography cases for a while.  I mean I've listed it out before, but the new left really doesn't believe in civil liberties (when applied to their opponents) and believes that they can use their own "hyper-liberties" as a sword to overrun those of the other side.  When you add in America is always evil on top of that you get AOC and Anti-fa as the new normal.

The best historical analogues for the modern day progressive movement is most likely the Temperance Movement of the late 19th Century and very early 20th century. Or the war on drugs for the past 50-some years.

"We don't like this. We find this immoral. We're going to make it illegal. We also don't care that society has been largely fine with it for longer than living memory."
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on July 12, 2019, 10:31:11 AM
Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

The reporter is quoting the research. Why shoot the messenger?
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on July 12, 2019, 04:16:27 PM
Although the reporter has it slightly backwards.

The reporter is quoting the research. Why shoot the messenger?

Because they're making the "umbrella effect" appear to cause warming, mostly through ambiguous phrasing. The "Umbrella effect" from clouds in this scenario causes cooling(think being in shade versus direct sunlight on a hot day). Clouds CAN cause a "blanket effect" which does create a slight amount of warming, because it traps heat already present beneath the cloud.

That said, the whole point about cosmic rays is Earth has received fewer of them than is typical for the past several decades because of intense solar activity in relation to the Sun's Magnetic Field and "the solar wind" for which sunspots are a good proxy. High sunspot activity = high magnetic activity = reduced cosmic ray exposure on Earth which then leads to reduced cloud cover on earth which means lower albedo effect on earth which means  increased global temperatures due to increased solar absorption.

That the Sun kicked into a more active period of sunspot activity(across multiple cycles) that happened to coincide with the beginning of the satellite record makes a lot of this speculative as it requires instrument record data that we don't really have at this time. At least until/unless the coming Solar cycle turns out to be as anemic as many believe it will be.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: DonaldD on July 12, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
Quote
AGW is a hoax
Why would one study, either supporting AGW or not supporting AGW, be sufficient to make someone so certain of anything?  It's just silly, given the thousands of papers on the topic, spanning multiple different disciplines.

That's not even getting into the relevance of the study... a study which is mostly a rehash of another study done 5 years ago.  For instance, cosmic ray flux on Earth has not shown a significant or consistent trend over the period of warming (during the satellite period) - in fact, cosmic ray flux lagged temperature changes over the period of 1970 to 1985.  Another major problem with ascribing anything to cosmic rays is that although galactic cosmic rays do lead to aerosol formation, the aerosols do not grow enough to form cloud-condensation nuclei, by 2 orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 10:11:31 AM
Quote
A bleak new federal report found that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to levels the world has not seen in at least 800,000 years (https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gases-level-2639803536.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1), highlighting the irreversible and mounting deleterious effects of human activity on the planet, as ABC News reported.

Global carbon dioxide concentrations reached a record of 407.4 parts per million during 2018, the study found. That is 2.4 ppm greater than 2017 and "the highest in the modern instrumental record and in ice core records dating back 800,000 years," the report said, according to CNN.

It wasn't just the amount of carbon dioxide that set record levels. Other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide also continued a rapid rise into the atmosphere. Together, the global warming power of greenhouse gases was 43 percent stronger than in 1990, according to the State of the Climate report released Monday by the American Meteorological Society, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information.

Greenhouse gases are not the only thing rising. Global sea levels also reached their highest levels on record for the seventh consecutive year, as ABC News reported. The report says that ocean levels are rising about an inch per decade, but that number may need to be revised if ice melt at the poles accelerates.

For global temperatures, 2018 ranked fourth, behind 2016, 2015 and 2017 for the warmest on record. That top four finish for 2018 is despite a La Niña system over the Pacific that cooled ocean waters for part of the year.

So far, 2019 is on track to be the warmest year in recorded history, according to NOAA.

Global sea temperatures also set a record level in 2018. "This record heat reflects the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the top 2,300 feet (700 meters) of the ocean," according to NOAA. "Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of Earth's excess heat from global warming."

The State of the Climate report noted that glaciers continued to melt at an alarming rate for the 30th consecutive year, as CNN reported...

The 29th annual release of the State of the Climate report was led by NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information and relies on contributions from more than 470 scientists from nearly 60 countries around the world. It incorporates tens of thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets and provides a detailed update on global climate indicators and notable weather events, according to NOAA.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 10:19:32 AM
So I think Rick Perry (partisan I know) kind of captures the issue that the right has with the demands that the US make major and destructive changes, while ignoring that it is leading the world on improving it's efficiency and reducing it's pollution, in the link below:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-democrats-climate-change-bernie-sanders-aoc (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-democrats-climate-change-bernie-sanders-aoc)

It feels like a world of massive hypocrites demanding that the US hobble itself while they do so much damage on their own that nothing the US could ever do would solve, or even slow, the problem.    Again, the US would do far more to help the world's environment by increasing it's production of carbon with production that is more pollution efficient than China and the third world can or will replicate.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on August 14, 2019, 11:00:09 AM
Or we could create or improve on 0 carbon technologies, improving our own local conditions while creating a global powerhouse  ;D industry of something everyone is going to want...  It's an investment, not a sacrifice.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 12:53:46 PM
I love it, let's go all in on Vaporware and let the Earth burn while it "develops."
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on August 14, 2019, 01:05:15 PM
Or we could create or improve on 0 carbon technologies, improving our own local conditions while creating a global powerhouse  ;D industry of something everyone is going to want...  It's an investment, not a sacrifice.

There is a difference between creating/improving on "0 carbon technologies" that are not competitive, and going "all in" on using non-competitive technology in order to reduce our impact, thus resulting in business moving to more competitive markets, where more environmental harm happens as a consequence of our actions.

It's counterproductive.

Of course, we can also go back to harping on the refrain about another "zero carbon" technology that could be getting used, which has a proven record for being being reliable and consistent baseline grid power generation. But isn't getting used because many environmental groups move to stop it whenever it gets brought up.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 03:13:34 PM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on August 14, 2019, 03:37:16 PM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: D.W. on August 14, 2019, 04:16:08 PM
Quote
Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.
No, that's what government is for.  Liberty and Happieness seem to be in question now and then, but life is first on the list for a reason.  Use force.  That's what it's there for.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 14, 2019, 05:27:39 PM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

And, apparently, Conservatism is to deny any fact that might limit a person's liberty or profits, no matter who may be hurt or how many.  Case in point.  :P
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2019, 07:10:28 PM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.

Sure can, nuclear power coming soon to a community near you.

Quote
We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

It's a nice thought, but you can't make an international deal without the other countries agreeing, and not one of the non-western countries will agree to and then comply with pollution friendly, economically bad constraints on their business.

You can use tariffs, which is exactly what Trump is doing.  Are you saying you agree with him?

Quote
What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

And we already have, which is why the US has been THE LEADER in pollution control in industry for decades, and is still making substantive gains in reducing pollution and in paying to develop pollution friendly tech. 

Give us credit, and look to the countries that aren't trying to make it better.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 08:22:34 AM
Quote
Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.
No, that's what government is for.  Liberty and Happieness seem to be in question now and then, but life is first on the list for a reason.  Use force.  That's what it's there for.

And this is why the second amendment is so important.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 08:24:12 AM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.  We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

Environmentalism is about the use of force to impose the will of the righteous on the unbelievers. Case in point.

And, apparently, Conservatism is to deny any fact that might limit a person's liberty or profits, no matter who may be hurt or how many.  Case in point.  :P

You’re talking about ideological fact there, Lysenko style. Imagining a world that may be, a fantasy.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 15, 2019, 04:17:44 PM
There are things we can do to address these problems.

We can ignore or override groups that object to certain technologies.

Sure can, nuclear power coming soon to a community near you.

And we may come to that, in the near future.

Quote
Quote
We can make international treaties that certain polluting technologies cannot be used anywhere for manufacturing, or put tariffs on products made with polluting technologies.

It's a nice thought, but you can't make an international deal without the other countries agreeing, and not one of the non-western countries will agree to and then comply with pollution friendly, economically bad constraints on their business.

You can use tariffs, which is exactly what Trump is doing.  Are you saying you agree with him?

There are ways we can encourage other countries to comply.  Subsidies.  Trade guarantees.  Special trade status.  I'm sure you can think of more.  And, yes, tariffs.

I'm not against tariffs, per se.  They are a tool, one that should be used very sparingly and delicately.  After all, it is basically a tax on the U.S. consumers of imported goods that has the effect of making those imported good more expense to us.  It puts pressure on the foreign country, while hurting us at the same time.

That does not imply that I agree with that idiot in the White House who doesn't understand tariffs and uses it to nilly-willy like a spoiled 10-year-old.  ::)

Quote
Quote
What we need is to agree that this is a problem that must be addressed, and then use political will to find solutions.

And we already have, which is why the US has been THE LEADER in pollution control in industry for decades, and is still making substantive gains in reducing pollution and in paying to develop pollution friendly tech. 

Give us credit, and look to the countries that aren't trying to make it better.

We have made progress, but hardly enough--CO2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years. :(  U.S. emissions increased in 2018, (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38133) although they are projected to decrease over the next two years.  But none is due to Republican leadership or the man in the White House, who denies there is even a problem.  You can't solve a problem you don't even recognize as being a problem.

We can do much better.  But we have to decide to do it, decide how we want to do it, and to do it.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on August 15, 2019, 05:03:29 PM
I'm not against tariffs, per se.  They are a tool, one that should be used very sparingly and delicately.  After all, it is basically a tax on the U.S. consumers of imported goods that has the effect of making those imported good more expense to us.  It puts pressure on the foreign country, while hurting us at the same time.

Tariffs are a strategy, which if employed incorrectly hurt 'us'. If employed correctly they do not. 'Us' marked like this because some people will always benefit from policies that generally screw over the populace, while good policies are going to be harmful to those particular areas. But this notion that higher prices due to tariffs harms America is the sort of short-term mistake that led to cheap crap being the payoff for losing all the jobs. It's a misreading of economics 101 where "lower prices = profit!" That's not how macro really works.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 01:19:25 PM
Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2019, 01:32:00 PM
Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.

He's like Lex Luthor. BEACHFRONT PROPERTY!!!
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 16, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
Quote
Tariffs are a strategy, which if employed incorrectly hurt 'us'. If employed correctly they do not. 'Us' marked like this because some people will always benefit from policies that generally screw over the populace, while good policies are going to be harmful to those particular areas. But this notion that higher prices due to tariffs harms America is the sort of short-term mistake that led to cheap crap being the payoff for losing all the jobs. It's a misreading of economics 101 where "lower prices = profit!" That's not how macro really works.

It's not that "lower prices = profit!"  It's "lower prices = more buying power for everyone."  Those who can produce a product more efficiently should do so, because it makes it more available to everyone.  Higher prices = everyone not be able to afford as much.

Of course, what jobs each country can do is efficiently is important, too.  And the fact that each country must have jobs in order to afford to import is true, too.  And that some countries can distort their "efficiency" with subsidies, cheap labor, ignoring environmental regulations (!), etc. is also a factor.  But the bottom line is that tariffs always increases the prices of imports.  And if the imports are cheaper than what can be made domestically (or from some other source), this will increase the price of items, decreasing buying power.  Thus they should be used sparingly, and with delicacy.

That much I remember from Econ 101. :)
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 02:26:18 PM
Lower COGS does equal profit. A certain amount of what China sends directly affect the bottom line of manufacturers here. Steel tariffs anyone? And guess what, those are lost jobs if the COGS goes high enough to make the business lose money. If higher retail prices are felt, that's less shopping, which is fewer jobs.

It's a complex equation, I'm not sure how the net balance works out. But I wonder sometimes about the obsession with manufacturing jobs while ignoring all the other kinds of jobs.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2019, 02:37:40 PM
Now do taxes.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2019, 02:38:44 PM
Well, Trump must believe in global warming, now he's trying to buy Greenland - probably because when the ice melts there will be room for dozens of new golf courses.

He's like Lex Luthor. BEACHFRONT PROPERTY!!!

Some people are looking and Greenland and saying, “Why?”.  I say, “Why not?”
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: Wayward Son on August 16, 2019, 04:00:06 PM
Why not?  Soren Espersen, foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People's Party, (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/16/final-proof-he-has-gone-mad-denmark-mocks-trump-reported-desire-buy-greenland) said it best:

"The thought of Denmark selling 50,000 citizens to the United States is completely ridiculous."  ;D
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 04:13:52 PM
It's just Trump's latest way to make America whiter with 50,000 instant immigrants.  ;D
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDrake on August 22, 2019, 01:01:38 PM
Updating my position on nuclear. I could really get behind the 4th gen reactors:

Quote
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[33]
100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[34]
Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

wikipedia.

It addresses my concerns about nuclear waste, even reducing it by consuming the spent fuel of other reactors. Some designs have very safe designs that slow their own reaction down to prevent meltdown or breach.

Also, about the economic argument. While it is true that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear per kwh, that is based on current deployment. The more widespread you take solar and wind, the less productive each new installation is, because the best spots are already taken. Nuclear doesn't have locality inefficiency.
Title: Re: Freedom Gas!
Post by: TheDeamon on August 22, 2019, 01:11:19 PM
It addresses my concerns about nuclear waste, even reducing it by consuming the spent fuel of other reactors. Some designs have very safe designs that slow their own reaction down to prevent meltdown or breach.
Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

Welcome to EBR2, April 1986 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II#Passive_safety). (Yes, the same month that Chernobyl happened in)

Except the reactors that can consume spent fuel from other reactors are going to end up being "breeders" of one stripe or another. Which means they're creating plutonium before they burn it off through fission.

And as was argued with EBR2, that the Plutonium isn't created in anything close to a "weapons grade" doesn't matter. That it would require extensive additional processing also doesn't matter. That it generates Plutonium at all is reason enough to kill the technology.