Author Topic: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.  (Read 31498 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
And it's also a reasonable position to think that the climate is changing but that we can't really do much about it, and it's a better option to adapt to the changes than try and destroy everyones lives to meet some arbitrary "net zero" or other goal. or at least to discuss this stuff reasonably without being labelled like you seem to be doing here.

The problem with this is there is not a great outcome from 3C+ warming which is what we are heading for.

It is a bit like saying the guy with lung cancer should cut down on his cigarettes to 10 a day if he wants to live longer...  The reason the scientists are sounding panicked is because this looks really, really bad.   Humans are, in general, very bad at conceiving some future badness which requires compromise now to avoid:  this is, in part, why people smoke, despite all of the evidence suggesting a 10yr+ reduction in lifespan for instance.  And it's also why the majority of people are ignoring climate change now (imo).  "That's a problem for future me!"

If you look at the models, yes they are just models and yes they can be wrong but so far they have proven reasonably accurate when back tested and tested on data as it arrives, we are heading for some pretty bad times.  Massive crop failure, higher sea levels, hotter summer temperatures leading to greater risk of forest fires etc.   You can already see some of that happening to the Greek islands now.  And it will get worse in Australia.  India regularly experiences 40C summers, record high of 45C.  Those are just about survivable.   How about 50C summer?  Is that survivable?  What about 55C? 

Will humans survive?  Yes, undoubtedly, we are a hardy species, we will move around to areas with better food, we will build flood defences, we will cut down forests to reduce the risk of fire.   But a lot of these interventions would not be necessary if we managed to act now, and a lot fewer people need die as a result of the consequences.  It's ironic when the economic arguments are made towards the cost of fighting climate change: no - the cost of not fighting it is far greater.

Side note:  It is amazing that so many people have not actually read the research that they claim to disagree with, because if they did so many of their questions would be answered.  The IPCC reports are extremely detailed, well researched and cited.  You can replicate many of the simpler parts of the papers to calculate things like CO2 forcing.  It is true, there is a wide error margin on some outcomes, but in most cases even the first standard deviation of outcomes is "bad". 
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
Massive crop failure, higher sea levels, hotter summer temperatures leading to greater risk of forest fires etc.

Bravo, you produced the classic list but none of these assumptions hold under critical thinking, there's very little scientific proof to support any of them.

Your mistake is this: you have seen how the climate models fit within the predictions of 1.5degC average temperature rise as happened so far, and extrapolate that the 3degC increase predicted by the same models is true. Fair enough, this is likely close. Then you go on and read that this causes massive crop failures. Yet in reality, you are not seeing any proof for this claim. While the climate models are relatively well tested, the crop models are not, and unlike climate where the 1-1.5degC rise can be verified from old data, there is no such a thing for crop failures. If there is, it assumes non-adoption of farming land, while in reality the drought is a bigger problem in areas that are poor for farming already, while increasing temperatures enable farming in new areas.

If significant crop failures were to occur after what, 2degC? 3degC?, we should be seeing clear signs of this already. I checked: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-dark-side-of-cobalt/msg4962169/#msg4962169 . Now wheat crops continuing to increase is not proof of the opposite, there are other crops than wheat and so on, and maybe there is some sudden steep decline after 2.5degC average rise or something, but this data sure is a red flag and reminds us about the burden of proof.

Higher sea levels is nearly irrelevant, it does not matter, the change is meaninglessly small and slow. All examples I have seen used to show sea level rise being relevant have been not about sea level rise, but local land sinking.

Hotter summer temperatures indeed increase the risk and seriousness of wildfires, but the key question is not what are the contributing factors, but what are the root causes for these fires. Again using common sense, I question why 41degC summer temperature does not "cause" forest fires but 43degC suddenly does? You don't have to dig very deep and not even into "alternative media" to find out these forest fires are almost exclusively started by human action and in alarmingly large number of cases, on purpose i.e. arson. While pyromania is well documented over the whole human history*, only in 2020's people who think pyromaniacs exists and are dangerous are called conspiracy theorists, even when they can point out credible sources describing these incidents.

*) specifically, pyromaniacs have recorded tendency to stay close to the fires they start, assist in putting them out, so seeing arsonists among firefighter should not surprise anyone

While mitigating the contributing factors is generally a great idea, I think much better results against forest fires could be had by attacking the root causes and direct factors, through education ("throwing out cigarettes is dangerous") and sanctions / fear of sanctions. This is how we deal with most other types of crime, too.

While at it, I have nothing against reducing CO2 as much as we can, through effective measures.

Quote
You can already see some of that happening to the Greek islands now.  And it will get worse in Australia.

Yep, ecoterrorism. In Australia specifically, see e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51125898 . Note that police has been able to prove over 10% as arsons, and that is obviously only the tip of the iceberg because police has to state their reports based on undeniable facts. And this is a really serious issue: even if we could stop fossil fuel use completely, the climate stays roughly what it is now. The same temperatures and summer drought continues. If we do nothing to the actual root cause of the fires, they are not magically going to stop, because we are only attacking the secondary, contributing factors, significance of which is probably overestimated by orders of magnitude.

If this steep relationship from 1.5degC temperature shift into significant increase of wildfires were true, then it surely should mean there were very little to no wildfires in the past. Again, I checked: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires . Just some random statistic from the US of A but it's something. Number of wildfires has stayed relatively constant, even decreased a bit.

I would guess even in 1980's, arson was a thing. Then they would have not been called ecoterrorists, though. We always have anti-society forces and will always have them, and it is important for a human being to be on the "right side of history". Road to hell is paved with good intentions and thus, if you want to destroy societies from the inside, you need some excuses for those useful idiots to drive your destructive agenda. Fighting against bad capitalists was cool at some point, now it's fighting against those who "destroy the nature".

Feeding this from mainstream media as a colossally bad idea. We can already see how Greta's "climate movement" basically formed around boycotting school and education. Climate activism is pretty much all about war against science. In real world, science and engineering, and people in STEM is exactly what we need to solve the CO2 problem. And I won't call it a "climate crisis" because I don't want to. It's an important problem to solve nevertheless as excessive use of fossil fuels mostly do harm, not only to climate but to political stability as well (it's enough to say, look at which parts of Ukraine the gas and oil fields happen to be.)
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 05:07:54 pm by Siwastaja »
 
The following users thanked this post: ROT, RAPo

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Side-side note.  I think this is why climate science seems alarmist, but it actually isn't (it's realistic and depressing).

Dig into the IPCC archive and extract their scenarios from 2007 for where we would be in 2020.

IPCC report 2007
IPCC report 2023

The relevant page is 54 for the 2007 report and 48 for the 2023 report.

If you look at all scenarios indicated, by 2020, IPCC expected we would see warming of around +0.5C over 1950 norm, under all emissions scenarios.  Instead, we have seen warming of about +1.1C over 1950 norm.  They were not expecting this warming until 2040.   What this indicates is they have been pessimistic in the past and shown to be wrong, the outcome was worse than expected. 
 
The following users thanked this post: Kim Christensen

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Massive crop failure, higher sea levels, hotter summer temperatures leading to greater risk of forest fires etc.

Bravo, you produced the classic list but none of these assumptions hold under critical thinking, there's very little scientific proof to support any of them.

Your mistake is this: you have seen how the climate models fit within the predictions of 1.5degC average temperature rise as happened so far, and extrapolate that the 3degC increase predicted by the same models is true. Fair enough, this is likely close. Then you go on and read that this causes massive crop failures. Yet in reality, you are not seeing any proof for this claim. While the climate models are relatively well tested, the crop models are not, and unlike climate where the 1-1.5degC rise can be verified from old data, there is no such a thing for crop failures. 

If significant crop failures were to occur after what, 2degC? 3degC?, we should be seeing clear signs of this already. I checked: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-dark-side-of-cobalt/msg4962169/#msg4962169 . Now wheat crops continuing to increase is not proof of the opposite, there are other crops as wheat and so on, and maybe there is some sudden steep decline after 2.5degC average rise or something, but this data sure is a red flag and reminds us about the burden of proof.

Disagree.  Agronomics is widely studied.  It's the reason we're able to feed so many people with so few people actually growing food.  (IIRC less than 1% of the world's population is involved in agriculture.  100 years ago, it was 15%.)  With the data we have on how certain crops perform in given climates, we can calculate yield.  So we then say, what happens if average weather temperatures go up by 5C?   

We haven't actually seen much impacts beyond occasionally hot summers.  One or two hot summers will not kill vast numbers of crops and farmers are planting hardier species.  The problems come when the crops don't survive any more because of drought and persistently hot summers.  Continued failed crops leads to dead ground and no amount of crop rotation saves you.

It is worth noting that the IPCC predict yield will mildly increase for the most northernly parts of the the western hemisphere, as temperatures rise to make more crops viable there.  However, the overall expectation is that net yields will fall.  Agreed that this is a hard thing to predict for sure, but we do already know that very high temperatures are generally bad for crop growth, so even a small increase in summer peak temperatures risks food security.

There has been some effort expended on making crops hardier towards higher temperatures.  I'm not sure what the state of the art is on this.  It would require a big political shift around GM crops which have been historically quite opposed by political parties across the spectrum, often for completely bullshit reasons.  (There are legitimate reasons to be concerned, but they can be mitigated.)

Hotter summer temperatures indeed increase the risk and seriousness of wildfires, but the key question is not what are the contributing factors, but what are the root causes for these fires. Again using common sense, I question why 41degC summer temperature does not "cause" forest fires but 43degC suddenly does? You don't have to dig very deep and not even into "alternative media" to find out these forest fires are almost exclusively started by human action and in alarmingly large number of cases, on purpose i.e. arson. While pyromania is well documented over the whole human history*, only in 2020's people who think pyromaniacs exists and are dangerous are called conspiracy theorists, even when they can point out credible sources describing these incidents.

Even if these fires are started by pyromaniacs, is it not worth still being concerned that they will be more frequent and dangerous?  Sure, let's try to prosecute the people who do these evil acts, but if the conditions for such arson didn't exist (very long periods with little moisture, high temperatures), then there would be fewer forest fires.  Seems like a good thing to me.

By the way, it is not 41C -> 43C (that is probably roughly where we were about 10 years ago) but more like 41C -> 48~50C (if 2C average warming occurs) because the variance of weather tends to be stronger than the direct warming impact.  For these events to occur, the holes in the swiss cheese need to line up, but the likelihood is increased the warmer the climate. 

While mitigating the contributing factors is generally a great idea, I think much better results against forest fires could be had by attacking the root causes and direct factors, through education ("throwing out cigarettes is dangerous") and sanctions / fear of sanctions. This is how we deal with most other types of crime, too.

Broadly agreed, I wonder if the fire fighting groups have considered using thermal drones to scan for people leaving BBQs etc burning.

Quote
You can already see some of that happening to the Greek islands now.  And it will get worse in Australia.

Yep, ecoterrorism. In Australia specifically, see e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51125898 . Note that police has been able to prove over 10% as arsons, and that is obviously only the tip of the iceberg because police has to state their reports based on undeniable facts. And this is a really serious issue: even if we could stop fossil fuel use completely, the climate stays roughly what it is now. The same temperatures and summer drought continues. If we do nothing to the actual root cause of the fires, they are not magically going to stop, because we are only attacking the secondary, contributing factors, significance of which is probably overestimated by orders of magnitude.

This is a silly argument though:  the current situation is not great, but preventing it from getting worse is almost certainly better than doing nothing.  But you are arguing that letting it get worse is not bad, because the situation is not great?  It is very circular.

If this steep relationship from 1.5degC temperature shift into significant increase of wildfires were true, then it surely should mean there were very little to no wildfires in the past. Again, I checked: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires . Just some random statistic from the US of A but it's something. Number of wildfires has stayed relatively constant, even decreased a bit.

I would need to do some more research, but a counterpoint to this is this snippet of data from UCS.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/infographic-wildfires-and-climate-change

this is also citing US data, so it's curious there is a disagreement.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
This group is very reasonable just like John Clauser.
Each member explained her/his thinking in a peaceful way.

You don't have the right to say the posters are unreasonable, just because they have different views on things.

The real problem here at stake is not climate, but silencing unwelcomed views.

Since you have nothing more to say, imho it is better to close this topic.

I thought this group was more reasonable.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Roehrenonkel

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Country: nl
In my experience with academia is full of "nut heads". Some can be fluent in solving complex equations, but be frozen by anxiety with the slightest bit of real world news. In my daily life, the only people I know without a smartphone are the elderly who don't know how to use one. In my work, the only people I know without a smartphone is because they are afraid of Google, Amazon and Facebook selling their data, and that intelligence services are tapping into their phone as they are working on new tech.

And to be honest, I can't fault those people for that. I don't like sticking "CONSPIRACY" on everything that's non-mainstream accepted. I can't prove in favour or against an argument, so what gives. Personally I'm indifferent to the CO2/climate change debacle, however, I tend to trust "the experts" that CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses is damaging this planet at a rapid pace, with experimental data in place from climate changes in the past decade or so. I don't have many other choices as I don't have the time nor expertise to dive into the literature and accurately judge what causality or explanation is most plausible on that. I'm just a plain EE/software guy.. not a climate expert.

I think we've seen the dangers of that happening in Covid times. Some scammers that "have done their research" are trying to get people to donate money to their anti-5G or anti-vax cult. These people rely heavily on a distrust in science, which is usually hilariously misrepresented. CO2 Coaliation looks a lot like this.
Science is not a collection of knowledge. Science is a process of truth finding. If one doesn't "trust science" or only "real science" and then proceeds on giving arguments using the scientific method, then that logic is inherently flawed. It's similar to saying that "free energy" doesn't rely on any science. Well it should, because that would show what other energy source its harvesting (which you could argue, is free) and why a perpetual energy system in itself can't work.

But even if they are right, I think there is a FAR more important reason to consider. We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever. Our world population still grows at a crazy rate. A majority of the world population still live in poor welfare conditions and the bigger that gap, the bigger that hunger for welfare becomes (see the various refugee crisis' we have had in the past century). We've been very good in depleting the world resources in the past hundred years or so.. but how long can we continue this? Do we want to figure out what a stock market ""bubble"" is like when it comes to humans, food and energy? Our "sophisticated" world is still incredibly vulnerable to power play on all those levels mentioned, as we've seen happen in the past 1.5 years. Do we want to bet on colonizing Mars? I don't know.. seeing our gov and private space programs I wouldn't get my bets up those "solutions" would arrive in time. And even if we would, it solving anything on Earth sounds like an utopia for now.

I think we have all the reasons to go for net zero, ASAP. Even if you don't give a crap on some plants or animals going extinct, sea levels rising a couple of meters, winters without snow and summers without rain.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, thm_w, BrokenYugo, Kim Christensen

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2439
  • Country: ca
I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"

Well, it's a pretty sensible viewpoint in any case. You don't need all the fearmongering to convey that, IMHO.

BTW, a honest question, as we are all engineers here, many working professionally -- what have you done to solve this Thing, thing referring to climate crisis, climate problem, CO2 problem, energy crisis, energy instability, whatever you choose to call it?

Let me start: I have been developing a product for consumers and commercial / light industrial customers which allows significant reduction in their energy costs and CO2 by letting them better match their energy use vs. grid production by utilizing the explicit and implicit thermal capacity of buildings, hot water tanks, plus of course electric vehicles. The product also bidirectionally meters own use vs. produced PV, and tries to optimize for local use whenever the grid doesn't need it even more direly (i.e., price benefit by selling to grid and buying back later, happens sometimes). This is a physical product which controls / interfaces with existing energy resources through line voltage relays, low-voltage optoisolators, RS485 buses. A web UI is offered for monitoring and control.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
BTW, a honest question, as we are all engineers here, many working professionally -- what have you done to solve this Thing, thing referring to climate crisis, climate problem, CO2 problem, energy crisis, energy instability, whatever you choose to call it?

It's difficult for one individual to have a huge impact.  On my pension and investments I've shifted some towards ESG, but I have to retain some in high-growth or I'll have nothing to retire on.  On the personal front, I bought an EV, I plan to install solar when practical.  I eat meat only twice a week (good for your body-fat too.) I switched to oat milk and cut dairy out (that's mostly for personal health though.)   I've insulated the parts of my house that I can do without extreme disassembly.

I try to promote impact-reducing efforts to people.  I've got a few friends who didn't realise their boilers were set far too hot.  I've repaired electronics that would have gone to the landfill and saved the purchase of a new 'thing', and I used to be quite active on repair forums for TVs (but don't really have the time to work on them any more.)

The one part I've not been able to find a viable alternative to is flying.  I like seeing places and travelling.  It has to be my "climate vice".  But I'd pay more for an airline ticket if they promised to use synfuels instead of fossil fuels.  Aviation is not an easy one to clean up.  Fortunately it's only 2-4% of global emissions, or at least that's how I convince myself that it's okay.

I work for an organisation that has a negative climate impact (defence-adjacent), but if there was a way to apply my skills to "saving the world" (and still get paid enough to cover the mortgage) I'd love to do it... sadly I've not  found a better option.  That said, given Russia appears to be slowly losing this war, it may force Europe to permanently shift more towards renewables to substitute the missing gas.  So maybe a distant benefit?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 07:24:18 pm by tom66 »
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
The shop I buy food, replaced plastic packaging with plastic lined paper. It's worse in quality, often times opened already on the shelves, spoiled food, and impossible to recycle because it's a composite.
On that topic: an independant consumer magazin did an analysis on which type of bag is worst. Turns out cotton bags you often get from 'biological' stores are the worst. The best are the bags made from recycled PET which have a low footprint but are also the most durable (you can use these for a very long time).
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Science is NOT about finding consensus or "truth", never was, never will be. This is a lie by non-scientist. Science is all about the process: verifiability of the claims, unlimited discussion, even debate. A lot of modern-day research is of substandard quality and this affects climate research as well. It's very alarming if alternative viewpoints within scientific community are not allowed.
It depends on how you define science. As a process to prove / disprove findings OR as a means to verify something to be true or not. As a process to prove / disprove findings it is a never ending story that never has a definitive answer. But the real world needs answers so scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.

Either way, it takes time and in the meantime people want answers. Even if it is the wrong answer. Religion exists to give people answers to questions that have no real answer. But having an answer, any answer makes people feel good. The whole Covid pandemic has made this painfully clear.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7527
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Why aren't the port cities of ancient history completely flooded?

But laymen are easy to fool. Open your TV on National Geographic and you'll see them repeat a documentary about how Venice is sinking because of climate change. Somehow, given the same climate and seas, Finland is raising and we are getting more and more land. Now all you need to do is apply tiny bit of critical thinking: watching the same Natgeo documentary they show how Venice is built on a swamp and has always been sinking. So why they mention sea level rise when it's causing maybe a few % of that sink rate? It's the brain washing part, mixed with factual content about Venice, which is of course interesting and fun to watch.

Usually one doesn't even need to go far in "alternative sources", I mostly follow mainstream media because it's still not based on the principle of "full propaganda", but contains facts, just with built-in interpretations you don't have to agree with. Critical thinking is all that's needed.

That is a terrible example. Google "why is venice sinking" and you'll see essentially every article clearly explains its mostly a combination of the two effects, which it is. If a documentary chooses to highlight one of the two issues, that is completely their choice, maybe that was the subject they thought was more appealing to the audience or topical.

"Sixteen hundred years ago, around the time of Venice's founding, the Adriatic's standard sea level was almost six feet below what it is today. "
"The latest study suggests that it’s sinking at a rate of about 1 to 2 mm a year"

Sea level rise = 1.1mm per year
Foundation sink rate = 1 to 2mm per year

https://www.venezialines.com/blog/venice-sinking-will-happen/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venice/solutions.html
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Country: nl
@nctnico Science is a never ending story.  This is why p-hacking is such a huge problem in the social sciences, unfortunately.
For engineering research though, IME majority of the work is spent in a state of confusion and frustration where even the simplest of stuff breaks. Once the dust settles and one starts writing, hindsight kicks in and realization comes in on what they have done. Now its time to write the introduction and hypothesis. Its more a state of the art instead of a process that can be forced at will.

I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"

Well, it's a pretty sensible viewpoint in any case. You don't need all the fearmongering to convey that, IMHO.
Yes, I don't mean to say its rocket science, even though I tend to blab on for ages.

Quote
BTW, a honest question, as we are all engineers here, many working professionally -- what have you done to solve this Thing, thing referring to climate crisis, climate problem, CO2 problem, energy crisis, energy instability, whatever you choose to call it?

Batteries, they are in so many devices around us. And they need regular replacement. Imagine if you have some industrial IoT application where you actually have to put a road, building or other structure into maintenance for a few days to do battery replacements. The battery itself may be 1$, but the labour is orders of magnitude more. And given these sensor devices may not even cost as much.. might as well install a new one when you're there.

Digital circuits scale down very well with lower power consumption. Analog does not. So one tends to see radio's as a big cut in the power budget of an IoT sensor. I'm working on backscatter radio to replace or complement existing radio technology. The principle of backscatter is very simple.. antenna + switch. Consumes nano to micro watt's. Lots of research being done; QAM, OFDM, LoRa, 802.11, BLE, WiFi, beamforming, localization/ranging, piggybacking energy from existing RF carriers (e.g. surrounding WiFi networks), etc.
It's not a magic bullet to replace everything, but it may have its strengths in pushing complexity outside the edge devices.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 09:31:28 pm by hans »
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
And it's also a reasonable position to think that the climate is changing but that we can't really do much about it, and it's a better option to adapt to the changes than try and destroy everyones lives to meet some arbitrary "net zero" or other goal. or at least to discuss this stuff reasonably without being labelled like you seem to be doing here.

The problem with this is there is not a great outcome from 3C+ warming which is what we are heading for.







Yes we are headed to a catastrophe. Look at it, we better start designing tree houses, since if it's going this way by 2085 the whole of Europe will be covered by trees. It's already 35% and it's growing every year.


The shop I buy food, replaced plastic packaging with plastic lined paper. It's worse in quality, often times opened already on the shelves, spoiled food, and impossible to recycle because it's a composite.
On that topic: an independant consumer magazin did an analysis on which type of bag is worst. Turns out cotton bags you often get from 'biological' stores are the worst. The best are the bags made from recycled PET which have a low footprint but are also the most durable (you can use these for a very long time).
Oh, one of my favorite. I think you need to use the cotton bag for some 17 years or so to offset using a new plastic bag for every shopping. But I've been using an IKEA big blue bag (made from everyone's favorite: plastic) so I guess it's never worth it.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE


Yes, this shows progress, it's great.  But... it's not a removal of CO2.  It's just producing less.  (Same as a small fall in high inflation figures is still 'bad news'... it's still high inflation!)  The production from all sectors needs to go to as close to zero as possible.  Anything that cannot be eliminated, needs to be offset by direct air capture or something similar.  Direct air carbon capture is expensive, and is unlikely without extraordinary breakthroughs to get cheaper, so this will be limited to the most difficult technologies to decarbonise, like aviation (if synfuels don't work out.)

See what the global emissions graph looks like from latest IPCC:



For those still unconvinced:-

Insurance and financial companies are taking significant actions against climate change.  For instance, some banks will not issue mortgages on properties at risk of future flood risk, because they don't like the idea of an asset they can't collect against in 20-30 years time.
 
Even companies like Shell and BP, who would benefit from continuing to extract and sell fossil fuels, openly admit anthropogenic climate change is happening and push their respective changes to "tackle the problems".  Shell, for instance, is pushing carbon capture hydrogen really hard, but also supporting the roll out of electric vehicle chargers.  BP are doing similar things with solar/wind investments and EV charging as well. 
 
If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved?  Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening?  Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 10:01:15 pm by tom66 »
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, ajb

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7276
  • Country: ca
Yes yes, and still another lie emerges in the form of Solar Roadways projects, and does not seem to care about your capitslism statement. Any idea why?
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1687
  • Country: aq
I don't understand.  This man is an intellectual giant in the science community. He has aligned himself with the very unscientific group "co2coalition"

Co2 coalition has no credible challenge to anthropomorphic global warming.

why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.
I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.

No wonder you dont understand! :-DD ^-^ It's "Anthropogenic". Better you do your home work first, like understanding Younger Dryas events Holocene maximum, mideval warm periods,
short period ice ages, etc , based on ice cores, real science not WEF Schwab man made pseudo religious science crap fraud.



 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, terminus

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved?  Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening?  Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.
 
The following users thanked this post: terminus

Offline Benta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6420
  • Country: de
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7527
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
No wonder you dont understand! :-DD ^-^ It's "Anthropogenic". Better you do your home work first, like understanding Younger Dryas events Holocene maximum, mideval warm periods,
short period ice ages, etc , based on ice cores, real science not WEF Schwab man made pseudo religious science crap fraud.



Misleading graphic.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

"Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole."

"This modern temperature reconstruction, combined with observational records over the past century, shows that current temperatures in Greenland are warmer than any period in the past 2,000 years. That said, they are likely still cooler than during the early part of the current geological epoch – the Holocene – which started around 11,000 years ago."
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 11:08:08 pm by thm_w »
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15802
  • Country: fr
Well.
 

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3518
  • Country: us
Ah, yes.  "Science deniers" are the real problem. 

So when a career scientist with advanced degrees doesn't agree with the views you advocate you claim they are  a "science denier".   

Loretta Lynch when AG asked Comey when he was running the FBI for suggestions on legal grounds that could be used for prosecuting my "thought crimes".  I was a career PhD level geoscientist.  She was asking how she could intimidate scientists.  Who's the "science denier"?

@EEVblog  I was banned by Simon for trying to point out a basic set of facts that so far as I know, are not disputed by anyone:

15,000 years ago there was a sheet of ice covering Iowa 1.2 km thick.

There is no ice in Iowa in the summer now except in freezers or after a hail storm.

There is no human record of the ice or its melting, but it ALL melted.  How could that happen?

Sea level rose about 200 m since the Pleistocene low stand.

The *average* rate of sea level rise at about 1.5cm/yr.

Hint for the arithmetically challenged.  That is a 30 m rise in sea level since Christ died.  Are all the coastal cities mentioned in Biblical times under water?

Explain why and show your work.

There are very compelling reasons to curtail the current rate of fossil fuel consumption in the developed world.
It's a finite resource, and, maybe, just maybe, some poor person should not go hungry because rich people want a discount on fuel for their cars by having it made from corn poor Mexican peasants need to sustain themselves each day.

I think I need another vacation from this forum.

Reg

 

Offline alm

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2903
  • Country: 00
There is no human record of the ice or its melting, but it ALL melted.  How could that happen?
Because humans didn't start writing until a lot later? Is this an attempt at an analogy to "if a tree falls in the wood, does it still make a sound"? Or just a straw man argument?

The *average* rate of sea level rise at about 1.5cm/yr.

Hint for the arithmetically challenged.  That is a 30 m rise in sea level since Christ died.  Are all the coastal cities mentioned in Biblical times under water?
Over what time period was this average? This paper (with results from three different studies including this one) describes a global sea level rise of about 15 cm from the year 1 to 2000. So I'd say you're off by over two orders of magnitude.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2023, 07:04:58 am by alm »
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7527
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
BTW There is no such thing as "the science community".
Everything has to be in a community these days. Even groups in massive conflict with each other get bundled into a community now. Like the ABCD community, where A and B are mortal enemies of C and D, but some people don't want the public to realist that.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf