Climate continues to change.

[William_James]

We already know environmentalists are not serious about carbon emissions or the environmental risks of spills vs leaks from their obstruction of pipelines. I think you have to be incapable of analyzing risk vs reward and cost versus benefit in order to be a modern "environmentalist."

I miss John Muir era environmentalists.

https://vintage.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/139688733205.gif

 

[trysail]

So, you think climate "science" knows what global temperatures were in the recent past?

Think again !!

Density of GHCN-Daily stations with daily maximum and minimum temperature

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/image88.png

Source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
​

​

 

[gunthernehmen]

I remain content to enjoy my little luxuries like A/C, cars that are fast, summer BBQs, central heating, being able to jet off to the islands for vacation...

If the sea level has to rise a few inches for my comfort, then so be it.

 

[phrodeau]

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-team-year-satellite-sea.html

Global sea level rise is not cruising along at a steady 3 mm per year, it's accelerating a little every year, like a driver merging onto a highway, according to a powerful new assessment led by CIRES Fellow Steve Nerem. He and his colleagues harnessed 25 years of satellite data to calculate that the rate is increasing by about 0.08 mm/year every year—which could mean an annual rate of sea level rise of 10 mm/year, or even more, by 2100.

"This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate—to more than 60 cm instead of about 30." said Nerem, who is also a professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. "And this is almost certainly a conservative estimate," he added.

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere increase the temperature of air and water, which causes sea level to rise in two ways. First, warmer water expands, and this "thermal expansion" of the oceans has contributed about half of the 7 cm of global mean sea level rise we've seen over the last 25 years, Nerem said. Second, melting land ice flows into the ocean, also increasing sea level across the globe.

 

[richard_daily]

I remain content to enjoy my little luxuries like A/C, cars that are fast, summer BBQs, central heating, being able to jet off to the islands for vacation...

If the sea level has to rise a few inches for my comfort, then so be it.

There's the honesty of why we're ruining the planet!

Good for you!

I hope you don't have kids, they'll be paying for your decisions.

 

[Dribble]

Well look at that. Scott Pruitt finally admitted that climate change is a reality and that humans have contributed to it. Of course...he goes on to suggest that this could be beneficial to humans...

If it wasn't so sad...it would be funny how stupid the deniers are. But one at a time...they fall...

 

[Que]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

Way to move the goalposts. I didn't say anything about how expensive uranium might be in the future to obtain. Regardless it's still going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we pay subsidizing solar.

current estimate is if we had to extract uranium from seawater is it would make the price 10 times as high for Uranium which would not make the price of producing nuclear power 10 times as much since the actual uranium is a pretty minor part of the entire process.

Like all minerals that we mine we have no idea how much of any particular mineral is in any particular place that we haven't looked. what we do know is the little tiny bit of the information that you displayed that we have at least conservatively speaking 200 years worth of uranium that we already know where to go find it.

Nuclear whether it be fission at the efficiency rates that we now have with fission reactors , better fission reactors, or fusion as Rob suggests.

 

[trysail]

Epic U.S. Energy Boom Bypasses New England: Region Bailed Out By Russian LNG
Regs, lack of natural gas pipelines make situation dire
by Mark J. Perry

...To save New England from freezing in the dark this winter, a shipment of high-priced liquefied natural gas, or LNG, had to be imported from the Russian Arctic and unloaded at a terminal in Boston Harbor in late January for use in home-heating and electricity production.

Not long ago, the idea of New England relying on Russian heating fuel shipped halfway around the world would have been laughed right off Boylston Street. The U.S. is, after all, now the world’s largest natural gas producer. But the fuel situation in New England is ominous. New England desperately needs more natural gas, which in part explains why the region has the highest natural gas prices in the country outside of Alaska and Hawaii. In fact, gas prices were the most expensive in the world during the January deep freeze. But the shipment of Russian LNG, despite international sanctions against Russia and an abundance of U.S. natural gas, has raised a number of questions that cry out for an answer...

...Although America is a global energy superpower and the United States has been the world’s top producer of natural gas since 2009, New England relies on imported LNG from faraway countries for about 20 percent of its natural gas. And as for propane, another heating fuel, New England would have been left in the cold had it not been for recent tanker shipments from overseas.

This is what happens when you don’t build your own natural gas pipelines, which are the safest and most economical way to transport energy. The trouble is there isn’t enough pipeline capacity to bring in natural gas from the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania to New England in times of high demand. Even as America’s natural gas production has soared, the pipeline capacity to get it to where it’s needed hasn’t kept up. The problem: political obstacles driven by environmental groups.

In the past two years, regulatory obstacles have led to the cancellation of two pipeline projects, which is ominous for a region that desperately needs more natural gas to make up for the shutdown of nuclear and coal plants. Moreover, there are those in the region who promote themselves as climate leaders but continually block new gas pipeline capacity...




more...


​

​

 

[trysail]

Sea Level Rise Acceleration (or Not): Part III— 19th & 20th Century Observations

by Judith Curry, Ph.D.

...Since publication of the AR5 with its highly confident assessment of a very likely mean sea level rise rate between 1900 and 2010 of 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr-1, or 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr-1 from 1900 to 1990, the following global mean sea level rise estimates have been published:

Jevrejeva et al (2014): 1.9 ± 0.3 mm yr-1 (20th century)
Kopp et al. (2016): 1.4 ±0.2 mm yr-1 (20th century)
Mitrovica et al. (2015): 1.2 ±0.2 mm yr-1 (1900–1990)
Hay et al. (2015): 1.2 ±0.2 mm yr-1 (1900–1990)
Thompson et al. (2016): 1.7 mm yr-1 ± 0.3 (20th century); less than 1% probability less than 1.4 mm yr-1
Dangendorf et al. (2017): 1.1 ± 0.3 mm yr-1 (1900–1990)
OTHERS?

A translation of these rates into inches per century: 1.9 mm yr-1 equals 7.5 inches; 1.5 mm yr-1 equals 6 inches; 1.1 mm yr-1 equals 4 inches.

While there is some difference in these numbers associated with ending the period in 1990 or 1999, the major discrepancies relate to tide guage selections, vertical land motion corrections, area weighting and statistical analysis methods.

The important point here is that recently published rates of SLR of 1.1 and 1.2 mm yr-1 are outside of the very likely confidence interval in the IPCC AR5...​

​

 

[Dribble]

Where do people publish data that has been rejected for publications? Blogs.

 

[William_James]

Of course tryfail should think of Judith Curry as a comrade. They're both shills for the industry.

Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry.

 

[trysail]

Can Intervention By The Rational Stop A Pseudoscientific Scare Backed By Big Money ?
by Francis Menton

...Much of the coverage of pseudoscience at this site has focused on two topics, climate change and the high fat diet. In the case of climate change, we are talking about really, really big government money -- tens of billions of dollars per year, supporting thousands of careers of pseudoscientists. Even a newly-elected President adamantly opposed to the scam has so far managed to slow down the flow of money only a little. In the case of the high fat diet -- subject to multi-decadal government-funded attack campaign -- the news that the evidence has disproved any association of fat in the diet with heart disease has still failed to reach my supermarket, where the shelves continue to be filled with products proclaiming themselves "low fat" and "heart healthy." These things aren't fading away any time soon.

But now consider the case of glyphosate, the key chemical ingredient in Roundup weedkiller. Glyphosate has been around for a long time (since the 1970s), and is extremely useful in agriculture -- which means that millions have had long-term exposure to it. Trial lawyers have been drooling for decades over the idea that they might be able to come up with some kind of association of glyphosate with some kind of cancer or other. They have had the problem that the actual evidence keeps turning up adverse...


(much) more...



​

​

 

[phrodeau]

Oh look, the fossil fuel industry also gets tens of billions of dollars per year from taxpayers. Imagine that.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/pres_budg_disc_spending_pie.png

 

[gunthernehmen]

There's the honesty of why we're ruining the planet!

Good for you!

I hope you don't have kids, they'll be paying for your decisions.

I like comfort. Sue me.

Sure, it's not sustainable and sooner or later there will be some disaster. Maybe the ice caps met and drown us all. Maybe all the crops die. Superbug escapes some military lab. Sun goes supernova. Whatever. Mother nature will balance us in the end, so live life.

I do have kids, but one, I'm not too fond of and the other has pretty much the same viewpoint.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy" to see why I'm not going to be the guy that gives up, conserves and ultimately dies out. Eff that. I have the AC running in one room cuz I like it cool and the heat on in the other cuz my wife likes it warm.

Life's short. Enjoy it while you can. The future and the planet will watch out for themselves.

 

[Dribble]

Where do people publish data that has been rejected for publications? Blogs.

Where do people link blogs to support their belief? Lit General Board

 

[Hypoxia]

Sure, it's not sustainable and sooner or later there will be some disaster. Maybe the ice caps met and drown us all. Maybe all the crops die. Superbug escapes some military lab. Sun goes supernova. Whatever. Mother nature will balance us in the end, so live life.
<snip>
Life's short. Enjoy it while you can. The future and the planet will watch out for themselves.

I consider myself a pragmatic Green. I expect people will continue to fuck the environment. Fine. When it gets bad enough, humans will have incentive to leave the planet... before the next extinction-event meteorite hit. Global degradation may be the way to save humanity.

Or we may pump more greenhouse gases until Earth goes into Venus mode. Sayonara, motherfuckers.

...

No, that's not the future I want for my grandkids.

 

[richard_daily]

Where do people publish data that has been rejected for publications? Blogs.

Because they're desperate to keep the oil money coming into their pockets.

 

[richard_daily]

I consider myself a pragmatic Green. I expect people will continue to fuck the environment. Fine. When it gets bad enough, humans will have incentive to leave the planet... before the next extinction-event meteorite hit. Global degradation may be the way to save humanity.

Or we may pump more greenhouse gases until Earth goes into Venus mode. Sayonara, motherfuckers.

...

No, that's not the future I want for my grandkids.

Who's going to be able to afford to escape the planet?

Do you think that rich assholes are going to save a seat for the world's poor?

They'll be left behind to deal with the problems that the rich assholes created.

 

[richard_daily]

I like comfort. Sue me.

Sure, it's not sustainable and sooner or later there will be some disaster. Maybe the ice caps met and drown us all. Maybe all the crops die. Superbug escapes some military lab. Sun goes supernova. Whatever. Mother nature will balance us in the end, so live life.

I do have kids, but one, I'm not too fond of and the other has pretty much the same viewpoint.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy" to see why I'm not going to be the guy that gives up, conserves and ultimately dies out. Eff that. I have the AC running in one room cuz I like it cool and the heat on in the other cuz my wife likes it warm.

Life's short. Enjoy it while you can. The future and the planet will watch out for themselves.

Your actions create Idiocracy. Hell, your actions ARE idiocracy.

Only a selfish and stupid man doesn't care about the repercussions of his actions.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Humans will be shrugged off by the planet sooner or later anyway. What's the difference? Enjoy the ride while you can.

 

[William_James]

The difference is, it could be your irresponsibility that contributes to making the ride worse for the next generation.

 

[trysail]

What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is that one is falsifiable. Astronomy says planet X should be in position Y at time Z. It is either there or not. Astrology says I will be a warm and loving person this month and will feel lucky.

Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. It doesn't mean the propositions are wrong, just that they are, by definition, not testable, provable, and therefore, not science. Science often involves revisions to theory, even profound embarrassment.

A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them. Climate change, unfortunately, has fallen into this pseudoscience trap. What possible data, what possible result, is not consistent with climate change theory? Warm weather? Cold weather? More rain? Less rain? When both flooding and drought are consistent with your climate theory, perhaps your theory is a little too loose to be called "science", and perhaps, a little humility is in order when discussing possible futures and responses.

And, I must admit, this frustrates me deeply, because, I think the pseudoscience element of climate change is attractive to people because they see being non-falsifiable as a feature, not a bug.​

-"Geoengineer"
(an internet nom de plume [obviously])​

​

 

[gunthernehmen]

The difference is, it could be your irresponsibility that contributes to making the ride worse for the next generation.

Assuming you believe that humans are responsible for global warming, or whatever it is being called this year, and not natural processes that have been ongoing for billions of years, then the issue is very simply, too many humans. The planet can't support 7b people.. This cannot be resolved other than through a near extinction level event.

I'm not willing (nor able) to murder maybe 5 or 6 billion people so the frigging butterflies can waft around in comfort. Perhaps you are. I'm an asshole, not a monster. Regardless, climate change was happening long before there were enough humans around to make the slightest difference, so you'll have killed all those people for no reason. But *I'm* the irresponsible one LOL

As the only viable solution is unimaginable, screw it. If it gets hot, I'll turn up the ac. Or make a frozen mudslide.

 

[phrodeau]

Assuming you believe that humans are responsible for global warming, or whatever it is being called this year, and not natural processes that have been ongoing for billions of years, then the issue is very simply, too many humans. The planet can't support 7b people.. This cannot be resolved other than through a near extinction level event.

I'm not willing (nor able) to murder maybe 5 or 6 billion people so the frigging butterflies can waft around in comfort. Perhaps you are. I'm an asshole, not a monster. Regardless, climate change was happening long before there were enough humans around to make the slightest difference, so you'll have killed all those people for no reason. But *I'm* the irresponsible one LOL

As the only viable solution is unimaginable, screw it. If it gets hot, I'll turn up the ac. Or make a frozen mudslide.

The viable solution is to leave the carbon in the ground. Is that as hard for you to understand as it is for you to do?

 

[William_James]

Assuming you believe that humans are responsible for global warming, or whatever it is being called this year, and not natural processes that have been ongoing for billions of years, then the issue is very simply, too many humans. The planet can't support 7b people.. This cannot be resolved other than through a near extinction level event.

With the right technology and respect for scarce resources, the planet is certainly capable of supporting seven billion people. The planet's ultimate carrying capacity is possibly several times that many. And it's entirely possible for each of those billions of people to enjoy a good quality of life. We just have to be willing to be smart about it, which means being willing to give up obsolete technology.