Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    (…)
    OK, where did "Nature" enter into human elections of officials/leaders ... ???
    Recent polls indicate it ranks high among concerns of the electorate - here no # 2 after immigration iirc.

    So naturally politicians that need to be (re)elected will either harp about migration or climate change, possibly both.

    Actually, from my take on recent history, that is exactly the case!
    Interesting. Perhaps we should have a thread on whale oil then

    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    While solar and wind may provide "energy", when the Sun shines and the Wind blows, they don't provide raw material for PRODUCTS; which is what those mis-called "fossil fuels"/Hydro-
    Carbon Resources(HCRs) provide. Solar and Wind Power ain't going to give us the "plastics" that we need to survive. ...
    That seems obvious yes. It's only fossil fuel if it's used…...well as fuel, otherwise it is a resource like anything else.

    ... Meanwhile, for the most part, that "cheaper" remains dependent upon the broad base of taxpayer(consumer) subsidy..
    Well yes, cost is relative and dependent on intention.

    Since Germany subsidizes wind providers here buy cheap there, if it's windstill we buy nuclear from France, if that fails we can always buy cheap Iranian or Russian gas, all are subsidized one way or the other,

    then we tax them 80% anyway since high cost of living keeps the riff raff off the Belgian Streets, but that's a different story.

    Last edited by Snowygerry; 08 Mar 19, 07:50.
    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      You funny

      Much too longwinded, otherwise some good points, especially by Wolfhound in regard to malaria there, that is the "face" of climate change for the individual - not some nonsense about the end of world.

      Please allow me to answer at my leasure, is getting near the week-end here and there's still some work to do.
      I was a bit harsh there, and maybe not called for to be so extreme. My apologies and thanks for seeing some humor there. Understand on the weekend thing, have the same here, especially if the weather stays dry and a bit warmer.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

        I doubt it.

        A source is what it is. All sources have inherent bias, but please note the sources I used are not "global warming experts" whatever they may be.

        They were "insect experts" on the one, and "sea-level experts" on the other, their findings are there for all to review or disprove, according to good scientific practice.

        That being said, let me point out, there is profit to be made by denying climate change, just like by confirming it - just the origin of the funds differs.



        Not at all. It's only hard to believe for those lacking in historical perspective.



        And you were rather late to the game, we know from the Greeks and Romans that everything north of the Schelde estuary was disease ridden swampland.

        Over the centuries successive generations cleaned it up, cleared and drained it, to the point that even in times of rising sea levels they gained habitable land instead of losing it.

        I'm sure you're familiar with the iconic images of "windmills" in Holland - they are in fact wind-driven water pumps, constantly draining the swamp so to say

        But none of that disproves anything I posted - rather it proves that anthropogenic "climate" change happens, is even deliberately done in many places with benifecial results.

        Forgive me for ignoring the psychological issues raised at the end of your post, as they seem less relevant to the issues under discussion here.
        I grant you the distinction of being pleasant to talk to

        I think you understood my point but decided to ignore it.

        We could go into the nitty gritty of how significant the increase in sea level rise related to global warming is compared to the geological trend. We could discuss in more detail the relative disease risk related to global warming as opposed to the point I proved that the movement of people is a greater risk. (If you didn't look at the last link you should). Those however are just the details that influence policy once all other factors are considered. What I was discussing was the deeper issue of social organization that prevents the experts from formulating rational recommendations. If you dismiss the psychology then you have no rational basis to put those recommendations in perspective.

        The other point I made which you seem to ignore is that it wasn't advancing the interests of the eco-system that eliminated malaria but the destruction of it. Nothing has reduced biodiversity as much as monoculture and the introduction of invasive species. If you think the cult of biodiversity would stop with killing millions by eliminating fossil fuels you don't understand the nature of the misanthropic environmental movement.

        You started off by dismissing my assertion that researchers have used climate change as a vehicle to gain grants. I based that on statistical analysis done several years ago. I plead guilty to making a poorly written claim. What I should have claimed is that the politics of climate change before the Trump administration influenced the wording of research grant applications. The following purports to demonstrate the opposite but I think you can see through that.

        To obtain funding, scientists may be avoiding use of the term 'climate change' in research proposals

        https://mashable.com/2017/11/30/rese.../#gpwcaZvUQiqf

        My point was only to illustrate that because of social organization science is influenced by politics in ways that conform to the current zeitgeist.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

          Recent polls indicate it ranks high among concerns of the electorate - here no # 2 after immigration iirc.

          So naturally politicians that need to be (re)elected will either harp about migration or climate change, possibly both.
          My original comment was a jest of sorts based on how that could be misread.



          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          Interesting. Perhaps we should have a thread on whale oil then
          Not sure we need a separate thread for that. I mentioned whales and elaborated as presented here;


          ... these large creatures are huge sized feeders upon many a fauna (and some flora) of the ocean and once their numbers were greatly decreased, by human hunting and harvesting, the ecology and biosphere/biodiversity of the Oceans would have been greatly upset. This is one major factor that I so far see little consideration given too in dialogues on "Climate Change". ~~~
          ~~~ the reduction in large sized whale population and it's impact on the food source they consumed and then it's rampant excessive growth, may have been a greater factor on Ocean chemical balances than any other action by humans, yet one that is least measured or understood.


          To underscore how human actions of the past have had unintended consequences and led to interesting future paths. The early industrial age was using whale blubber for a source of lubricants, some earlier versions of "plastics" and also lamp fuel, IIRC. While petroleum had been around and known for centuries, and used in same ways (bitumen for one), it was the decline of whale population that provided incentive to develop refining and distillation methods to make better use of it.

          Also, that disruption of ocean animal population and diversity could have been a factor in altering the "climate" of the ocean to some degree. We've seen some other possible cases such as near extinction of the bison/buffalo on the North American plains, also during the mid 1800s and earlier where the coastline regions of North Africa used to be grain production areas in the time of the Roman Empire, but over use of those lands caused then to go fallow and become desert, adding to the size of the Sahara.



          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          That seems obvious yes. It's only fossil fuel if it's used…...well as fuel, otherwise it is a resource like anything else.
          My distinctions here were two fold and you've touched upon that fuel and/or products aspect. The other is the use of term "fossil" which is to my mind too vague and imprecise, and not fully accurate. Vague, muddled, inaccurate terms and lack of precision in terms and language is a major source of confusion and cross purpose dialogue on the subject of climate change/flux, IMO.

          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
          Well yes, cost is relative and dependent on intention.

          Since Germany subsidizes wind providers here buy cheap there, if it's windstill we buy nuclear from France, if that fails we can always buy cheap Iranian or Russian gas, all are subsidized one way or the other,

          then we tax them 80% anyway since high cost of living keeps the riff raff off the Belgian Streets, but that's a different story.

          Subsidies, taxes, REAL costs; there's a huge topic for another time. TANSTAAFL

          Interesting tangent that relates is how to date, all experiments in socialist government/economies seem to need the existence of capitalist, free market ones "on the side" to provide some of the goods and resources that the socialist ones fail to produce, not to mention provide banks for the apparatchiks to stash they skimmed wealth and more pleasurable havens they can escape to.

          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            We could go into the nitty gritty of how significant the increase in sea level rise related to global warming is compared to the geological trend. We could discuss in more detail the relative disease risk related to global warming as opposed to the point I proved that the movement of people is a greater risk.
            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            Also, that disruption of ocean animal population and diversity could have been a factor in altering the "climate" of the ocean to some degree. We've seen some other possible cases such as near extinction of the bison/buffalo on the North American plains, also during the mid 1800s and earlier where the coastline regions of North Africa used to be grain production areas in the time of the Roman Empire, but over use of those lands caused then to go fallow and become desert, adding to the size of the Sahara.
            That's indeed what one could expect and hope given the thread title yes.

            Then again after checking - this *is* posted in "current events NA" not some science board, so carry on I guess

            (If you didn't look at the last link you should).
            I will then - give me moment...

            Edit, this one ?? Come on are you serious ?

            https://thoughtcatalog.com/brianna-w...all-victim-to/


            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            Not sure we need a separate thread for that. I mentioned whales and elaborated as presented here;

            (...) it was the decline of whale population that provided incentive to develop refining and distillation methods to make better use of it.
            Yes I know what whales are, it's just that here whale oil was never used in any meaningful quantity - although oil lamps had been known since Roman times, they used olive oil, ordinary fish oil or even bee wax.

            Candles were found to be more practical, and easier to massproduce, they remained the main source of light until kerosene lamps and gas lamps became commonplace.

            Lubricants had been made primarily from animal fats and vegetable oils.
            Last edited by Snowygerry; 11 Mar 19, 09:35.
            High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post



              That's indeed what one could expect and hope given the thread title yes.

              Then again after checking - this *is* posted in "current events NA" not some science board, so carry on I guess
              You'd have to ask Daemon of Decay, whom did the OP of this thread.
              Meanwhile, there are some on this topic in the Science subforum, but haven't seen much activity of late. In order of most recent posts (going back only for seven pages worth);
              Renewables overtaking fossil fuels in new power generation
              Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!
              Famous Physicists Speak About Climate Change
              Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted.
              Global Warming a Hoax?
              Solar (Stormy) Weather
              The Effects of Global Cooling
              "Legal Petition Urges EPA to... Regulate CO2 as Toxic Substance"
              More bad news for the Gorebots: Greenland ice sheet not collapsing.
              Arctic scientific expedition delayed by worst summer sea ice "in 20 years."
              Efforts to mitigate climate change could cause 8-fold increase in hunger.
              This just in: Ice Age postponed due to global warming!
              More bad news for the Gorebots: "Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'"
              Oops! "Increased CO2 enhances plankton growth," diametrically opposed to expectations
              Everything Americans know about science in seven graphs
              Astrobiology ~ Exobiology; Life Beyond Earth ...



              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              I will then - give me moment...

              Edit, this one ?? Come on are you serious ?

              https://thoughtcatalog.com/brianna-w...all-victim-to/
              I did not provide that link, nor recall making the statement you quoted.
              I think that was Wolfhund and the link was the last of a few in a post, so needs to be considered in that context.?




              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              Yes I know what whales are, it's just that here whale oil was never used in any meaningful quantity - although oil lamps had been known since Roman times, they used olive oil, ordinary fish oil or even bee wax.

              Candles were found to be more practical, and easier to massproduce, they remained the main source of light until kerosene lamps and gas lamps became commonplace.

              Lubricants had been made primarily from animal fats and vegetable oils.
              The USA had a fairly large and strong whale hunting industry back in the 1800s and they(whales) were mainly slaughtered for their blubber(an animal fat), melted down into oil, so at least we(USA) were using it a bit. Also, IIRC, the USA lead in developing refining and distillation of petroleum as a replacement for whale oil, initially. The essence is we discovered other uses for petroleum.
              Last edited by G David Bock; 11 Mar 19, 18:53.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Oil companies are facing an increasing number of lawsuits that aim to hold them responsible for the impacts of climate change. What the companies knew about their contributions to global warming will answer some key legal questions, including whether they have sold products while knowing they would cause public harm.

                A new group of documents was revealed on Thursday, detailing Shell’s history of studying climate change and its impacts. The documents show that not only did the company understand its role in climate change for the past several decades, but also predicted that legal liability awaited. The documents were found by Jelmer Mommers, a journalist for De Correspondent, and are available at the Climate Files website.

                They are similar to the documents that the nonprofit news organization InsideClimate News unearthed in 2015 about Exxon’s decades of climate science knowledge.

                Here is a timeline that shows internal research and discussions by some of the biggest oil companies over the past 40 years and how their public statements and campaigns often included very different messages. It begins to draw the picture of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and when and how it contrasted with their public stance:

                July 1977: James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company’s top management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

                May 1981: In a paper written for Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the first half of the 21st century.

                November 1982: Exxon distributed a paper internally on climate change that advised “major reductions in fossil fuel combustion” for limiting global warming.

                June 1988: James Hansen, a NASA scientist, testified during a congressional hearing that human activities were causing global warming. It was the first major public warning of a looming climate crisis.

                1988: Shell prepared an internal report called “The Greenhouse Effect” that analyzed the impacts of climate change. It noted that fossil fuel burning was driving climate change and quantified the carbon emissions from its products (oil, gas, coal) made up 4 percent of global emissions in 1984.

                1989: In a move to coordinate a public response to the growing attention on climate change, a group of big businesses, including Exxon, BP and Shell, formed the Global Climate Coalition. It set out to cast doubt on climate science and lobby against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

                February 1995: An internal report by Shell warned that fossil fuel burning was the main source of manmade emissions that was driving global warming, and this fact “could have major business implications for the fossil fuel industry.”

                1991: A 30-minute video produced by Shell included dire predictions and images of fires, floods and food shortages. A narrator included this ominous warning: “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”

                1996: Exxon solidified its public stance on dealing with climate change when chief executive Lee Raymond wrote an article for a company publication saying that scientific evidence was “inconclusive” on whether humans were contributing to climate change.

                1997: Exxon took out an ad in the New York Times that was titled, “Reset the Alarm,” which said: “Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.” It also read, “We still don’t know what role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming the planet.”

                1998: In a speech to employees, Lucio Noto, chief executive of Mobil Oil (before its merger with Exxon) told employees who were apparently were upset about “what they think is Mobil’s negative attitude on the Kyoto so-called climate agreement.” His speech was captured on video. He said while there’s a connection between greenhouse gases and climate change, “we are also not prepared to admit that the science is a closed fact, and that we should take draconian steps tomorrow to reduce CO2 gases.” He also said the company should try to reduce its operational emissions as well as those produced by customers.

                1998: Shell produced a document called the Shell Internal TINA Group Scenarios 1998-2020 Report, which included modeling a future that included oil companies and governments being held liable for climate impacts. Its scenario eerily described the U.S. being hit with fierce storms in 2010, followed by activist groups initiating legal liability cases. (In reality, the biggest storm him the East Coast in 2012—Superstorm Sandy—and liability cases began to stir after that.)

                2009: In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Exxon acknowledged that humans were causing climate change.

                2013: A study by Richard Heede published in the journal Climatic Change showed that 90 companies are responsible for two-thirds of the carbon emissions since the start of the industrial age in the mid-18th century.

                August 2017: A Harvard study that analyzed Exxon’s internal papers and public statements and campaigns showed the company misled the public about what it knew about the risk of climate change. The peer-reviewed study concluded that Exxon emphasized doubts about the scientific evidence that blamed fossil fuel burning for global warming when communicating with the public while acknowledging the issue more forthrightly in internal communications.

                Comment


                • Doesn't seem to factor in continent movements, but ...

                  The Last Time the Globe Warmed

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoErAhz4
                  https://youtu.be/ldLBoErAhz4
                  Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Mar 19, 13:02.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • Anthropogenic climate change is an old idea. John Tyndall speculated about it in 1861. It is in fact obvious to any thoughtful person. What is not obvious to most people are the political motivations for making it a central issue today. Those political motives I will leave for another day because they are also self evident in the nature an formulation of the IPCC.

                    This is the face of modern climate change.

                    james-hansen-arrested-by-officer-green.png
                    Scientists can be absurdly egotistic because under ordinary circumstances science is highly competitive. A life time of competing for grants and the desire for recognition from the science establishment produces a narrow focus and obsessiveness. When they get involved in politics those experiences that have been deeply incorporated into their personalities lend themselves to a savor complex.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Dan Britt - Orbits and Ice Ages: The History of Climate

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM
                      https://youtu.be/Yze1YAz_LYM

                      One interesting revelation is that our planet is about the coldest it's been in about 500 million years. At this time we are in a warm period of a colder cycle, might still be in an Ice Age. Also, we see in his charts how the Earth has been mostly much warmer over most of those past 500+ million years than now.

                      Maps are very interesting;
                      https://www.google.com/search?q=cret...w=1280&bih=910





                      Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Mar 19, 14:09.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • The truth about global warming

                        Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
                        https://youtu.be/fA5sGtj7QKQ

                        About 14 &1/2 minutes of information on how and why - The models are way off and inaccurate, don't match current data.
                        Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Mar 19, 14:26.
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

                          ...
                          TEDx Talks
                          Published on Jan 4, 2019

                          Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies destroy the environment? In this provocative talk, Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and energy expert, Michael Shellenberger explains why solar and wind farms require so much land for mining and energy production, and an alternative path to saving both the climate and the natural environment. Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine Hero of the Environment and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. A lifelong environmentalist, Michael changed his mind about nuclear energy and has helped save enough nuclear reactors to prevent an increase in carbon emissions equivalent to adding more than 10 million cars to the road. He lives in Berkeley, California. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

                          ...
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
                          https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

                          About 17-1/2 minutes of viewing.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                            Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia

                            ...
                            TEDx Talks
                            Published on Jan 4, 2019

                            Environmentalists have long promoted renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind farms to save the climate. But what about when those technologies destroy the environment? In this provocative talk, Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and energy expert, Michael Shellenberger explains why solar and wind farms require so much land for mining and energy production, and an alternative path to saving both the climate and the natural environment. Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine Hero of the Environment and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. A lifelong environmentalist, Michael changed his mind about nuclear energy and has helped save enough nuclear reactors to prevent an increase in carbon emissions equivalent to adding more than 10 million cars to the road. He lives in Berkeley, California. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

                            ...
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
                            https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

                            About 17-1/2 minutes of viewing.
                            I watched that video. He's right. Solar is worse than even he makes it out to be. To get one kilowatt-day of power out of a solar plant reliably, you need about five (5) kilowatts of installed capacity.

                            It roughly breaks down like this:

                            You need 1 KW to supply the daytime need. You need another to supply early morning and late afternoon or when the weather is poor and the plant isn't producing. The last three are necessary to provide energy to charge whatever storage method you are using to provide power when the sun goes down and to make up for losses in the storage system, including capacity for when the plant is not producing at full capacity due to weather.
                            Thus, you need five times the actual use capacity of the plant. This then becomes problematic when the plant is producing very efficiently at full capacity but demand is low. The plant has to dump that extra power or otherwise use it up. A common method now being used is to simply give it away, even pay to give it away. That is the power company pays you to use more electricity.

                            Nuclear is the way to fix the carbon issue, if you think carbon is the issue. Nuclear is massively concentrated power that is very reliable. The "problems" with nuclear like spent fuel, etc., are really boogiemen created by the anti-nuclear hysteria crowd. Nuclear is reliable, safe, and clean. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on hysteria and ignorance.

                            Comment


                            • Ignorance, hubris, and delusion combine with socialist political agenda to apply insane solutions to a non-problem;

                              It's 2050 And This Is How We Stopped Climate Change
                              https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...climate-change
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • Radioactive particles from huge solar storm found in Greenland
                                Discovery raises questions about emergency plans in place for severe space weather
                                ...
                                Traces of an enormous solar storm that battered the atmosphere and showered Earth in radioactive particles more than 2,500 years ago have been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet.

                                Scientists studying ice nearly half a kilometre beneath the surface found a band of radioactive elements unleashed by a storm that struck the planet in 660BC.

                                It was at least 10 times more powerful than any recorded by instruments set up to detect such events in the past 70 years, and as strong as the most intense known solar storm, which hit Earth in AD775.

                                Raimund Muscheler, a professor of quaternary sciences at Lund University in Sweden, said: “What our research shows is that the observational record over the past 70 years does not give us a complete picture of what the sun can do.”

                                The discovery means that the worst-case scenarios used in risk planning for serious space weather events underestimate how powerful solar storms can be, he said.
                                ...
                                https://www.theguardian.com/science/...d-in-greenland
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X