Well, at least a little good news.
And Now, the Really Big Coal Plants Begin to Close - Scientific American
And Now, the Really Big Coal Plants Begin to Close - Scientific American
Did you catch the part where the author said, "I don’t pretend that what follows is a definitive primer on these issues. Not even close. But I thought it might be useful to share what I learned — if for no other reason that it might arm readers with some useful scientific information when they encounter people peddling politics in the name of science."? And yet, about 2/3 way down the article, he starts to make conclusion about CO2 and global temperature.
Did you read the comments following the article? If not, you should have.
There are lots of them, and some (used in advanced industrial processes) are tens of thousands times more potent than CO2, and because they are generally very stable halogenated compounds they live practically for ever once released in the atmosphere, unlike methane or CO2.
Look no further than the relatively ordinary (in our field) SF6, which is already over 22k more potent than CO2 (and lives for ever): CO2 equivalents | Climate Change Connection
Certainly not: it is one of the very many contributors, and it is not possible to disentangle the combined effects of so many gases. I just gave it as a quick and convenient example, but there are worst offenders, and most are probably not known in fact, because the properties of all gases have not been studied in such detail.
Many of these gases are involved in very advanced technologies, which are not even patented and are kept secret, and because they are expensive to produce, industrials do not voluntarily spill them, but losses are inevitable, and with hundreds of compounds potentially 10k more powerful than CO2, the combined effect becomes very significant, even if only a few tons are lost each year for each species.
Many of these gases are involved in very advanced technologies, which are not even patented and are kept secret, and because they are expensive to produce, industrials do not voluntarily spill them, but losses are inevitable, and with hundreds of compounds potentially 10k more powerful than CO2, the combined effect becomes very significant, even if only a few tons are lost each year for each species.
There is no incoherence whatsoever in warning that this not a definitive article and reporting conclusions from scientists on the link between CO2 and temperature.
As for the comments, it's the usual mixed batch of go and forth between climate deniers and a few good souls trying to reason with them. I actually read some of it, leading me to this: Executive Summary - Climate Science Special Report But that must be a conspiracy organized by most of your research agencies.
I was hoping to see some relevant culprit/s on the cause of global warming.
Have you heard anything about the sun activity and GW in terms of their sync?
The author, "Tom Yulsman directs the Center for Environmental Journalism and is a professor in the Department of Journalism. He also serves as a faculty member in CU’s Environmental Studies program.
Yulsman received his MS degree in 1980 from the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University." (colorado.edu site)
Wouldn't you rather listen to someone with Ph.D. in meteorology and or climate scientist?
For a compilation and summary ? A good journalist is actually the person for the job. You can always click on all the links he provides to read the specialists, it's not like he's drawing any personal conclusions. Or read the official report I just linked to, prepared by all those people: Credits - Climate Science Special Report There should be enough academic credentials in there to please you.
Laughably, you do not even understand the concept of thermal lags and thermal mass (high school science) and you then posture against climate change. If you had a PhD in maths or some science subject I might be inclined to listen to you. Clearly you don’t.
And therein lies the danger around this whole climate change discussion (and any other field of science people who have little appreciation of engineering or science dip their toes into). They get their information off cargo-cult science sources like Twitter, Facebook and a host of conspiratorial websites posing as ‘scientific’ which they are anything but and then pose as erudite, knowledgeable individuals.
But facts are facts. We’ve pumped 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1870 and the planet has warmed more quickly since 1940 that at any time in the last circa 1 million years. Volcanoes have been debunked, SF6 is a non starter, the Sun’s output has not changed and every other ‘cause’ raised by climate science deniers other than CO2 has been thoroughly debunked.
If it’s not man made warming, please tell us what else it can be.
Interesting how yoinks pick the most southerly point in mainland Australia surrounded on two sides by ocean. You have also shown only two years out of c. 150. Where is the rest of the data? Graphs please.
Try picking a few weather stations in the northern hemisphere, or better still, a few hundred located all over the globe.
This is nonsense stuff.
A couple of articles by Climate Scientists
Die Klimazwiebel: Lennart Bengtsson: Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy.
I realise this is someones BLOG you can request the original text here
The global energy problem | Lennart Bengtsson
The point is, science is the process of test and measure to gain a result where the probability of the result is within 2σ from the mean ie 95% confidence. This is not happening in climate science and why these prominent Climate scientists are speaking out.
If CO2 was causing GH effect the whole globe would see a raise in temperature not just a few weather stations in the NH. You said the global temperature has risen since 1940 a snapshot of 1865 and 2018 should show this trend.
And there is no reason to get personal. This should be an intelligent discussion on an important subject.
Die Klimazwiebel: Lennart Bengtsson: Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy.
I realise this is someones BLOG you can request the original text here
The global energy problem | Lennart Bengtsson
The point is, science is the process of test and measure to gain a result where the probability of the result is within 2σ from the mean ie 95% confidence. This is not happening in climate science and why these prominent Climate scientists are speaking out.
If CO2 was causing GH effect the whole globe would see a raise in temperature not just a few weather stations in the NH. You said the global temperature has risen since 1940 a snapshot of 1865 and 2018 should show this trend.
And there is no reason to get personal. This should be an intelligent discussion on an important subject.
Accounting for the thermal lag, why isn't global temperature increase in sync with the increased CO2? Or, which past CO2 increase are we experiencing the lagged heat up now?
Solar activity? It's a question.
If it is indeed man-made, then wo/men can cool it or keep it from warming any further. How would that be achieved?
I am not saying Humans have had no impact on the climate of the Earth, this would be as ignorant as saying CC is 100% anthropogenic. Human activity will have had some impact, but it's more likely to be in deforestation, urbanisation and the MEGGATONs of garbage we produce yearly. Not CO2, if CO2 was causing GH warming then the WHOLE Earth would be warming, which is not the case. Canada had a massive cold in recent years. In one of the PDF's I posted there is research on CO2 vs temperature and as the CO2 has increased the Temperature has not tracked the CO2 increase in a predictable fashion.
The climate is a complex chaotic system that no one on this planet ATM truly understands, if they did then weather predictions would be pretty accurate, hell they can't even predict tomorrows temperature accurately.
Things that effect the climate
Milankovitch cycles
deforrestation
urbanisation
These are are probably the top 3 but there are 1000's of other causes.
Yep and in 1642 Galileo was executed for daring to pose the unthinkable, that the Earth orbited the Sun. It's fortunate we have done away with executions for Heresy.
No he wasn't, living and writing up to 77yr. old was quite good for those days.
You probably post from the superior position based on nonsensical Scottish wind farm business correct?
The Scottish wind-power racket - CapX
Last edited:
I was actually wondering when deforestation was going to come up! This is IMO definitely a big part of the equation. Mass clearing of land for farming or habitation has reduced the ability of the earth to "lock up" carbon dioxide (and if the trees that are chopped down are burnt then this also adds to carbon dioxide emissions).
Sustainable Forrest industries, where wood is used to make long life products and structures, is one good way of taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
There are many pieces to the puzzle, many many things interrelate, throwing something out of balance can have wide ranging effects.
If you start to look at it from multiple angles, extra carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere, reduction in trees to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, changes to ocean currents due to melting ice causing different distribution of cold / warm water around the globe, it's all a massive complex system.
One thing I've always wondered about is nuclear energy. What is it's contribution? Heat is generated from nuclear reaction, heat that would otherwise have remained locked up slowly decaying over millions of years. Maybe it is just a tiny blip in the scheme of things, but it must have some impact?
Tony.
Sustainable Forrest industries, where wood is used to make long life products and structures, is one good way of taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
There are many pieces to the puzzle, many many things interrelate, throwing something out of balance can have wide ranging effects.
If you start to look at it from multiple angles, extra carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere, reduction in trees to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, changes to ocean currents due to melting ice causing different distribution of cold / warm water around the globe, it's all a massive complex system.
One thing I've always wondered about is nuclear energy. What is it's contribution? Heat is generated from nuclear reaction, heat that would otherwise have remained locked up slowly decaying over millions of years. Maybe it is just a tiny blip in the scheme of things, but it must have some impact?
Tony.
Last edited:
When I wrote “what am I missing” it was intended as a rhetorical question but the more I think about it what I am really “missing” is the ability to persuade people to believe nonsense. Convincing people not vaccinate their children or that the doctors who came to fight an Ebola outbreak are really cannibals is evidence of a true gift that I unfortunately lack. If I had that kind of power, I would not waste it destroying the planet or killing people. I would start a cult (not the creepy kind).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.