Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have lots of other choices as well.

Soooooo...... Rather than filling up your tank at a politically not so much in agreement with thou gas station, instead..... you'd drive extra miles (producing more CO2) to find more politically correct gasoline (petrol)?

Interesting.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

... politically correct gasoline (petrol)?

"Political correct Petrol", that's a term to remember.

And, now I understand why Donald Trump is not in the fuel station business...

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not that new. It is called "nuclear winter."

So you are saying the dip in the early 20's and early 50's was caused by nuclear winter? Did I miss something besides the US dropping 2 nukes on Japanese cities full of civilians?

Man, even I was kidding, I kind of played the card open to you and you did not pick it up. I expected you to play along with me, something along the line: most of the worlds power, industrial and transport infrastructure was gone, CO2 output was reduced, no machines, people like the Trümmerfrauen did a lot of manual labor, etc.

What do you come up with? Nuclear winter.

I go home now - playing with you guys is not fun anymore ...

If you need me I'll be in the "cat litter thread", where they are discussing a similar subject.

(again just to make this clear, I'm kidding and do not want to offend anyone!)

[weavis]

Science used to be about collecting information as facts. The facts depend on data and from that data, some relevant truths would emerge, and yet the truth would depend on other facts.

Somewhere along the line of humanity, Politics became the arbiter of truth. Truth in Climate rises or falls is independent of the conclusions made. They are just figures based on statistics.

Take away the financial gain, or re prioritize the political agenda and perhaps the figures will be interpreted differently. A miracle?

I see where man is making errors in polluting the earth. On the other hand, the earth has recovered from worse in the past and man is still here.

Go sailing. There is nothing you can do. Politics will do what it does....

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.

I just find it incredible that some people actually believe this sort of marketing? Gasoline is gasoline, it doesn't make a difference where it was produced, if still burns the same, produces the same exhaust etc.

Had I been able to understand the psychology behind this feel-good-about-yourself marketing many years ago, I could have become rich like Al Gore or some of the other political cronies. All one needs to do is take an off-the-shelf product, then rebrand it in such a way that it makes the end user feel morally superior.

Maybe there's still time...

I read through all the information I could find on the COOP in Canada, and it simply looks exactly the same as a COSTCO type distribution/retail center with slick marketing that also happens to own a refinery. Their gas is no different than any other gas being sold in the surrounding area.

It would be just like US residents filling up at a Costco or BJs Wholsale Club gas station, then feeling morally superior as they drive away. Slick marketing.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

...So you are saying the dip in the early 20's and early 50's was caused by nuclear winter? Did I miss something besides the US dropping 2 nukes on Japanese cities full of civilians?

Man, even I was kidding, I kind of played the card open to you and you did not pick it up. I expected you to play along with me, something along the line: most of the worlds power, industrial and transport infrastructure was gone, CO2 output was reduced, no machines, people like the Trümmerfrauen did a lot of manual labor, etc...

Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century? | Skeptical Science

...Early and late 20th century warming has been explained primarily by increasing solar activity and increasing CO2 concentrations, respectively, with other factors contributing in both periods. So what caused the cooling period that interrupted the overall trend in the middle of the century? The answer seems to lie in solar dimming, a cooling phenomenon caused by airborne pollutants.

The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

• Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
• A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).

Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.

The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed...

[SailOar]

Shell creates green energy division to invest in wind power | The Guardian

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, has established a separate division, New Energies, to invest in renewable and low-carbon power.

The move emerged days after experts at Chatham House warned international oil companies they must transform their business or face a “short, brutal” end within 10 years.

Shell’s new division brings together its existing hydrogen, biofuels and electrical activities but will also be used as a base for a new drive into wind power, according to an internal announcement to company staff...

The Anglo-Dutch group may already be trailing Total of France, which already has its own New Energies division and boasts of being the world’s second-ranked solar energy operator through its affiliate SunPower, bought for £800m in 2011...

Shell has pulled back from high-risk Arctic drilling but is still engaged in deepwater projects and in the high-CO2 Canadian tar sands – although it is trying to cut emissions by developing a carbon, capture and storage facility.

The Shell boss told investors at a company meeting in London last week he did expect oil and gas demand to continue strongly but the company also took its responsibilities to tackle global warming seriously.

“The big challenge, both for society and for a company like Shell is how to provide much more energy, while at the same time significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions,” he said...

Paul Stevens, a fellow at the Chatham House thinktank, said in a research paper that the oil majors were no longer fit for purpose – hit by low crude prices, tightening climate change regulations and wrongheaded strategies...

.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Kenomac noted one of your (many) errors. A second error is that Ivanpah is NOT "producing no energy", but is working at 1/3 capacity, because the 2nd of 3 towers is down for scheduled maintenance. If you are so sloppy with facts and figures that are right in front of all of our noses, why should we trust you to be honest about the assertions that you make that are harder to double check?

When I make an error I am happy to acknowledge it. Something you might experiment with some day.

Like most all green energy 'solutions', Ivanpah isn't doing what it was touted to do. That is why it may soon go dark, unless more public money is spent propping it up. Could California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant be forced to go dark? - MarketWatch

Since it only produces energy during the day time, you need exactly the same amount of continuous energy producing power capacity that you would if you never sunk billions into this boondoggle. These are the true costs of the fight to reduce warming by 1/5th of a degree in 85 years. Spending vast sums of money on projects that never seem to work out in order to achieve something so trivial, the failure to achieve it is virtually cost less. The very definition of insanity.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Shell creates green energy division to invest in wind power | The Guardian

.

Wow, a for profit company bellying up to a gigantic trough of public cash to get their share. Never thought I would see that.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

If I would own a car I would buy gasoline only from organic certified oil wells and refineries and only if the human rights record of the country where it is coming from is clear. Not to mention the environmental record. Discrimination and racism should not be an issue too. Ah and before I forget, I would not buy it if gender equality is an issue.

I do not own a car because I boycott all asteroids on a collision course with Earth. One of those bastards caused the Dinosaurs to die out and put a lot of this biostuff underground to become the oil we use today. Let's show them damn asteroids!

Lets assume this is jackdale (no offense intended), who ran out of gasoline in front of an Exxon Mobile fuel station:



Seriousely, are you guys for real ? Usually people buy their gasoline at the fuel station which is the closest at the time the tank runs low.

Personally, I take my carbon production responsibilities pretty seriously. I just installed one of these to power my home generator so I don't have to support the evil power company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw72YcUOCR0

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I want to be cautious in my wording here so that someone doesn't jump all over a misstatement. The modern CO2 measurements of course have some uncertainty. But that uncertainty is small compared to the measured value and the trend.

Yes, you are correct. Those processes have of course been impacted by the warming trend that already exists. My point is simply that we know the sum of those processes is a net absorption of atmospheric CO2 over the recent past. This goes directly to transmiterdam's point about the non-linear complexity of many of these processes. We know with relatively high certainty that the natural systems are absorbing roughly half of our emissions. We know much less about exactly where it is going, by what process, and how those processes are changing. That is not to say we know nothing. We know more about the net exchange with the ocean than we do about those on land. And both have a large body of established research and ongoing improvements, including the paper that newhaul posted about secondary forest regrowth.

Well explained, mr_f, and much more credible frankly than the transparently one-sided and alarmist pitches we usually read around here. More persuasive, imho, to acknowledge what may be considered scientific "facts," what remain as "uncertainties," and then provide reasons for what mitigation may or may not follow. I don't know any other way for mostly lay people to try and understand the science without the discussion always devolving into someone's obvious personal or political agenda.

A note about that paper: If they are correct that previous estimates of the contribution of secondary forests were too low, that does not mean that the natural systems are absorbing more CO2 that previously thought. It means that we had the wrong process explaining the uptake (since the current atmospheric total still needs to add up to the same value we have measured). It gives us new information on what mitigation strategies could be effective. And it potentially helps us better understand the other sinks, and therefore how they may be changing.

Seemingly valid point but lots of poorly understood variables apparently.

If it was found that recovering secondary forests are a large fraction of the current land sink, that potentially is bad news. Forests can only recover so much, especially in the context of expanding land-use, so that particular sink may be reduced in the future, and our emissions would have even greater impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Perhaps new awareness communicated in a credible way will help offset the trend towards expanding land use and destructive slash & burn practices. Seems like there's some movement in this direction, most notably in parts of the developing world.

I think it is important to note that uncertainty works both ways. Our actions could cause less warming than projected, or they may cause more. (And the uncertainty is not evenly distributed: there is a long tail on the "might be worse" end. There may be very low probability of it being much worse than anticipated, but cumulatively there is a greater chance of it being worse than better.)

Or a new, naturally-caused cooling cycle could begin which could overwhelm these human influences. A precursor might be whether Judith Curry's predictions about Arctic sea ice either staying the same or expanding over the next few years bears out.

Not sure how the complex uncertainties can & should be anticipated & managed, except by coming up with reasonable mitigation solutions that try and respond in a measured way to these uncertainties. I agree that, in theory anyway, the "what if's" on the pro-AGW side lend themselves to preemptive/precautionary measures more than they do to the "what if's" on the contrarian side, but only if the mitigation that is implemented is reasonable. What I do firmly believe is that continuing to purposely exaggerate and alarm people only lends itself to a loss of credibility for the science, even if it's just the pseudo-scientists and their respective entourages that are touting the message.

Combine that with the fact that, as previously noted, the best information we have says any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration we cause today will remain for a long time.

Unless science determines that it's more about absorption rate than capacity. Then as we reduce emissions there could be more potential for the earth to heal itself like it has always managed to do before.

We are making a decision either way. Either we decide to do something or we decide not to do something. Do we have sufficient certainty to choose to do nothing?

It seems like "we" -- in the western developed world that is -- already are. Much of what was deemed "radical environmentalism" just a generation or so ago is now pretty mainstream. Certainly there seems to be more awareness now than ever before. The problem is that this progress left an entire environmental industry in its wake, and one that is closely associated with a more extremist left-wing political faction that most from both parties are not aligned with, and who many find repugnant. (I'm only speaking about my perceptions in the U.S.). This is inconsistent with what science does, how it operates, and what it's about, so until it can somehow detach and isolate itself, there will always be the perception if not the reality that it's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are untrustworthy. I don't envision much progress on the policy front until this can be overcome, and the scientists and scientific process in this area can be trusted again by the mainstream populace.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Well at least we got some kind of answer and by your saying we have a lot of our own I would assume it is from the tar sands region .

Now THAT would be ironic!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Oh come on! Even you would have to admit that there are other data sets and that GISS is by far the most alarmist.

Here ya go. (I've omitted UAH since you seem to have such a problem with Spenser and Christy )

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why do you make that absurd comment? I have repeatedly said I trust their data.

But then rarely if ever copy & paste it, which itself speaks volumes. Is there anyone who does not "accept" or "trust" this data?

Stu - thanks for circumventing another mindless & frustrating merry-go-round with Jack on this. Not sure what he's trying to accomplish with these silly games except wasting peoples' time.

Maybe you or someone who knows how to transpose the data can show the UAH & GISS data directly compared to each other on a single graph, with reasonable start & end point years that don't unduly bias the trend line in either direction so as to distort the results. The we could more clearly see the actual disparities. I would imagine it would be particularly useful to see recent comparisons in light of all the chatter in the media lately about recent temps being the "warmest on record, etc."

Maybe then we can finally get past this little song & dance, and be more educated when people choose to only post graphs that happen to favor their particular position. I strongly doubt this is what the scientific method teaches and is all about.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you miss the reference to GISS?

Apparently so. The use of acronyms can be a convenient & efficient way of communicating to others in an area of common knowledge, or they can be used on a mostly layman's sailor's forum to make yourself look important & smart. I prefer the use of analytical skills over memorizing acronyms to try and become better educated in new-to-me subject areas. You're retired from teaching, so it's entirely up to you if helping to educate others is no longer your priority.

[newhaul]

Don't know about record highs but we have been below normal by 5° f. Here for almost a week even heard we had a record low in this same timeframe. But then thats called WEATHER. Last Months record high for one day is due to climate change.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The easy part for me is I live within 10 miles of 4 gasoline refineries and I purchase my diesel from pettit directly via a card lock station. As far as issues I have never had any problems my diesel tank is stainless steel.
What station do you purchase your gas from and where do you live? I will see if I can find the info for you

Thanks Newhaul. I did a little poking around and found out who the local (regional) distributor is, but then I thought about it and believe Keno is correct about the very limited practicality of being choosy where you buy your fuel (unless you're set up for biodiesel maybe). I often avoid Citgo whenever possible, but only because I read it was owned by the govt. of Venezuela. But hey, are the sheiks any better? Oil is a worldwide commodity and little is accomplished being choosy except a bit of personal but fleeting personal gratification. Unless one is into the virtue signaling meme that is.