worst case scenario we end up getting off our need for petroleum, coal, and natural gas a bit earlier than we really need to, which isn’t a bad thing because even without global warming, those aren’t renewable resources.
2 Likes
Because individuals that own the industries that create greenhouse gases have purchased many politicians.
2 Likes
written by Schurer, who also wrote
Reconstructions of past climate show notable temperature variability over the past millennium, with relatively warm conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and a relatively cold Little Ice Age (LIA). Multimodel simulations of the past millennium are used together with a wide range of reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric mean annual temperature to separate climate variability from 850 to 1950 CE into components attributable to external forcing and internal climate variability. External forcing is found to contribute significantly to long-term temperature variations irrespective of the proxy reconstruction, particularly from 1400 onward. Over the MCA alone, however, the effect of forcing is only detectable in about half of the reconstructions considered, and the response to forcing in the models cannot explain the warm conditions around 1000 CE seen in some reconstructions. The residual from the detection analysis is used to estimate internal variability independent from climate modeling, and it is found that the recent observed 50- and 100-yr hemispheric temperature trends are substantially larger than any of the internally generated trends even using the large residuals over the MCA. Variations in solar output and explosive volcanism are found to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400 to 1900, but for the first time a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600–1800 is also detected. The proxy reconstructions tend to show a smaller forced response than is simulated by the models. This discrepancy is shown, at least partly, to be likely associated with the difference in the response to large volcanic eruptions between reconstructions and model simulations.
which seemingly contradicts your efforts to minimize solar variability.
Don’t we have a nice instrumental record of the Solar Constant somewhere"
Regulation cuts into profits. Responsibility cuts into profits. When ethics and morality are not a consideration and the only thing that matters is profit, they do what costs the least: they buy favor and lie.
3 Likes
perhaps, but who is willing to bet that we will run out before the planet becomes hostile for our well being?
And shouldn’t we be prepaired with alternative methods of doing things for such scenario before it actually happens? Cause that would be like turning off the switch and kissing modern civilization goodbuy.
2 Likes
I’m liberal, and while I have my wish list of how I’d like the world to be, the big central aspect of it is I’d like it to still be a relatively viable habitat for humans.
Full stop.
Geo-engineering may well be part of the solution, but when you’re in a hole, stopping digging is the first obvious step. Any geo-engineering solution will be more likely to succeed, and less extensive /potentially harmful the smaller the problem is. Many historical environmental types have become open-minded about nuclear power. I think that speaks to their being open-mindedness in that quadrant. Coal and oil tycoons will still be coal and oil tycoons even if cheap and easy power alternatives are developed, as low emission methods of using them are already being developed and petrochemicals for uses other than energy production are still abundant.
Several economists have acknowledged that climate change poses catastrophic risks:
This is not a left or right issue. This is a question of are you creating a chemical catastrophe, or are you involved in stopping it. Framing it as a political wrestling match diminishes it’s importance and lulls the uniformed into inaction.
4 Likes
it’s a fair point. once again for me though, it’s still the lack of science worth teaching on either side.
Not going there; irrelevant to subject.
? because science, applied or non, doesn’t deserve justifiable funding?
Sadly so on the US anti-science movement, but my latent jingoism compels me to point out Wakefield was a Brit. And there’s also Monckton Flapdoodle or some such, the puzzle designer/climate enthusiast.
(USA! USA! USA!)
1 Like
Well, make me an offer.
Okay, I’ll believe pretty much any outrageous bullshit for sums over six figures. Half in advance.
1 Like
Oh, I thought you were going to offer me money, so I could feel righteous by turning you down. Sorry, I’m so broke I steal money from homeless people. I can offer a dollar and 100 South Korean Won?
1 Like
That’s not even enough for me to believe you don’t have any money…
2 Likes
I could throw in a Scottish fiver that I’m not sure is legal any more?
3 Likes
Thank you for the answer and your honesty. I would postulate that we know a great deal about the sun through a variety of datapoints (I’m not sure what the “under laying dimension of existence” has to do with it) and that until your vibrant contracting/expanding solar pulse is visible to detection by means other than your eyesight/tinfoil hat, I’m standing with the exhaustive body of scientific evidence that shows Earth’s climate is changing due to human input.
3 Likes
It’s like having “Democratic” or “People’s” in the name of your country.
2 Likes
Just saw this graph this morning – likely created by the same team that faked the moon landing: (via Mike the Mad Biologist)
Climate Change: Evidence
Silly NASA – probably going to receive another budget cut after this…
While there are many variables that influence global temperature, it is hard to argue that an increase CO2 (most likely anthropogenic) isn’t a significant contributor.
5 Likes
Yeah but that line isn’t a static line and you have posted a picture.
The line goes up and down every day in the year and every minute in every day and yet you have a line that seems very smooth.
Ice melts.
But it also freezes.
Your line should be coming down more and if only you were to look at relative CO2 levels over the course of the period when the ice was freezing you would be able to understand why it is apparent that climate change is whooey wrapped in bluster making a ‘Woo-Woo’ noise whilst it disappears up it’s own arse.
Rather like my ‘opinion’.
I never meant to imply I thought just quitting fossil fuels cold turkey was a good idea, I’m just saying that, justified or not (though it’s probably justified), climate change is the primary thing spurring the development of alternative fuels, better batteries, low-polluting power sources, etc, not peak oil.
