New report on climate change released today

[Jimmy Higgins]

$10,000 PRIZE TO THE FIRST APPLICANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT MAN-MADE CO2 CAUSES CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING
NOVEMBER 27, 2019 CAP ALLON

With what rules of evidence?

Also, what is the specific meaning for "catastrophic"? To whom or what?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no solution to the problem unless we --


increase gasoline taxes and

increase electricity bills for energy produced by coal.


Someone has to tell the crybabies what they don't want to hear.

Actually, I object to this approach. Don't do it piecemeal, tax CO2 emissions.

I agree. Tax Carbon Dioxide emissions, and if practical, Methane emissions too (particularly fugitive Methane from all elements of the natural gas industry).

No subsidies; No special treatment; No minimum wholesale prices; And all CO₂ emissions taxed at the same rate across the board.

But it's not going to happen.

Good point. Tax all greenhouse gases. Methane is 20x as nasty as CO2, it gets 20x the tax.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This, another James Randi type challenge, with not quite a million dollar prize, but nevertheless relevant. A group of REAL scientist have thrown out this challenge to anyone who can scientifically prove the minute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing GW/CC/CD.

$10,000 PRIZE TO THE FIRST APPLICANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT MAN-MADE CO2 CAUSES CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING
NOVEMBER 27, 2019 CAP ALLON
To emphasize its claim that there is no convincing evidence that carbon dioxide causes temperature warming beyond natural cyclical limits long observed and recorded, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has offered the Professor Augie Auer prize of $10,000, to be granted to the first applicant to present real-world evidence showing that the man-made fraction of airborne carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.

•In honor of the late AUGIE AUER, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming, Chief Meteorologist for the MetService, co-founder of the NZ Climate Science Coalition and much-loved scientist of the highest integrity, members of the Coalition have established a fund now totaling $10,000 to be granted to the first applicant to present real-world evidence showing that the man-made fraction of airborne carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.

Weaseled--"catastrophic". That's a subjective term. Given the fight to claim the prize nobody's going to bother and they're going to crow that since nobody claimed the prize there's no evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no solution to the problem unless we --


increase gasoline taxes and

increase electricity bills for energy produced by coal.


Someone has to tell the crybabies what they don't want to hear.

Actually, I object to this approach. Don't do it piecemeal, tax CO2 emissions.

How are the emissions to be taxed? "tax CO2 emissions" is just a meaningless slogan unless it translates into higher gas tax.

Any such CO2 tax has to include higher price for gas and for electricity generated by coal.

Whatever form it takes, it must force all consumers individually to pay a higher price for their fossil fuel consumption, which has to mean higher price at the pump and higher utility bills. I.e., it means the crybabies have to give up their entitlement to cheap gas.

That means all drivers, all consumers of energy would have an incentive to change to non-carbon alternatives. Those who don't change must pay higher prices.

What form of carbon emissions is greater than that of gasoline consumption and coal-produced electricity? Obviously taxing these directly, at higher than the current rate, will greatly reduce carbon emissions.

Of course there are other forms of carbon emissions which also should be taxed. And those costs would be passed on to consumers. Like the higher gas taxes paid by truckers would be passed on in the form of higher prices. Direct users would pay the tax, but this higher cost would be distributed around to everyone.

If individual consumers are not taxed directly, forcing them individually to pay higher prices, incentivizing them to change, how are the emissions to be reduced?

For things like gasoline you would tax it based on the expected CO2 emission of burning it. Someone could reclaim that tax if they showed they used it in a fashion that didn't release CO2.

 

[angelo]

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.

Then the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is about to be stampeded by these 11.602 people who signed that review, and made to look stupid? I'm looking forward to it!

 

[angelo]

$10,000 PRIZE TO THE FIRST APPLICANT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT MAN-MADE CO2 CAUSES CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING
NOVEMBER 27, 2019 CAP ALLON

With what rules of evidence?

Perhaps the rules of the scientific method?
https://electroverse.net/10000-priz...e-of-co2-causing-catastrophic-global-warming/

 

[ZiprHead]

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.

Then the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is about to be stampeded by these 11.602 people who signed that review, and made to look stupid? I'm looking forward to it!

I take it the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't subjecting themselves to peer review because it's all just a huge conspiracy, right.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-california/

Life in Southern California, once as mild and predictable as the weather, is being transformed as the climate grows hotter, drier and in some regions windier, fueling more intense wildfires, deadly mudslides and prolonged extreme drought.

The changing natural world is in turn forcing a fundamental social reckoning, altering the choice of crops on some of the nation’s most bountiful farms, erasing the certainty of electrical power in some of its wealthiest homes and exposing the limits of environmental activism among some of its most liberal voters.

The cradle of the Earth Day movement is confronting the consequences of a warming Earth.

Since 1895, the average temperature in Santa Barbara County has warmed by 2.3 degrees Celsius, according to The Post's analysis. Neighboring Ventura County has heated up even more rapidly. With an average temperature increase of 2.6 degrees Celsius since preindustrial times, Ventura ranks as the fastest-warming county in the Lower 48 states.



Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Warming here already has exceeded the threshold set in the 2015 Paris climate accords, which President Barack Obama joined and the Trump administration has promised to leave. The agreement concluded that average warming worldwide should be held “well below” 2 degrees Celsius to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences — but it already has warmed by more than 1 degree Celsius.

Across California, the growing heat and loss of moisture threatens the iconic coastal redwood forests and the Joshua trees of the southern desert. Bird populations have been ravaged by drought, with several once-prominent desert habitats losing 43 percent of their species in the past century, according to a study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Offshore, the warming ocean has depleted once-expansive kelp forests around the Channel Islands and has thrown oyster, crab and urchin harvests into disarray.

Thirteen whales washed ashore dead this year in the San Francisco Bay area, and when marine biologists went searching for answers, they found that many of them had empty stomachs.

The results, so far, have been dismal. In 2015, the county pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent compared with 2007 levels. Two years later, a progress report found that, rather than reducing those emissions, Santa Barbara was actually exceeding its 2007 levels by 14 percent.

“The city’s legacy tells a story about how progressive it is on environmental matters,” said Leah Stokes, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who specializes in energy and environmental politics. “But in our own backyard, we are not nearly as progressive as we think.”

We’re always willing to make changes that cost nothing, but never willing to take steps that really change things and that will cost something,” said Edward France, the former executive director of the Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition.

There has been some progress. The city council recently voted to create a program that allows utility customers to select the source of their electricity. Residents will automatically receive 100 percent renewable power from desert solar panels, which can be more expensive, unless they choose not to participate.

But the oil industry still has clout. In 2014, it spent big to defeat a county referendum that would have banned “high-intensive” drilling operations such as fracking and steam injection. And county officials are actively considering a proposal to allow a major drilling expansion in the north, a move environmentalists say would directly contradict their climate goals.

“We’ve got this wave of new oil projects being proposed, but we also have a climate action plan,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center, a local organization that emerged after the 1969 oil spill. “You can’t responsibly approve one, and claim to be serious about the other.”

Talk is cheap but actual change is extremely difficult.

 

[angelo]

Then the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is about to be stampeded by these 11.602 people who signed that review, and made to look stupid? I'm looking forward to it!

I take it the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't subjecting themselves to peer review because it's all just a huge conspiracy, right.

Follow the money!

 

[angelo]

Here's a little fact that's not nor can be easily refuted.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been on a downward trend for millions of years, from many times today's almost historical low. If oceans have absorbed much of this CO2 , they would have become much more acidic, yet limestone, corals and exoskeletons continued to grow, not be dissolved out of existence.

Adherents of GW/CC/CD can lambast " fringe conspiracy theorists " as much as they want, but they can't prove their pet theories or modeling of a coming Apocalypse. Now even the much referred to NASA to argument their religious like adherence to GW/CC/CD as human caused has been thrown out the window by saying it's the Earth's eccentric orbit around it's star for the majority of the changes, like it's always been.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ts-may-have-triggered-ancient-global-warming/

 

[lpetrich]

Follow the money!

Of climate-change deniers to the likes of the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil.

'So they knew': Ocasio-Cortez questions Exxon scientist on climate crisis denial - YouTube All the way back in 1982.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is about to be stampeded by these 11.602 people who signed that review, and made to look stupid? I'm looking forward to it!

I take it the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't subjecting themselves to peer review because it's all just a huge conspiracy, right.

Follow the money

Did you know the real New Zealand Climate Science Coalition actually went out of business in 2010? They sued over temp statistics, lost their ass and had to liquidate. They were originally funded by the Heartland Institute, a right-wing "think tank" propaganda generator. Follow the money, indeed.

The people that claim today to be the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition are actually American bloggers. If you google New Zealand Climate Science Coalition then click on the link to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, it switches to a different web site that simply repeats anti-climate change news stories. No one there does any original research.

 

[Elixir]

Follow the money!

Did you know the real New Zealand Climate Science Coalition actually went out of business in 2010? They sued over temp statistics, lost their ass and had to liquidate. They were originally funded by the Heartland Institute, a right-wing "think tank" propaganda generator. Follow the money, indeed.

The people that claim today to be the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition are actually American bloggers. If you google New Zealand Climate Science Coalition then click on the link to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, it switches to a different web site that simply repeats anti-climate change news stories. No one there does any original research.

... but #SAD!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a little fact that's not nor can be easily refuted.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been on a downward trend for millions of years, from many times today's almost historical low. If oceans have absorbed much of this CO2 , they would have become much more acidic, yet limestone, corals and exoskeletons continued to grow, not be dissolved out of existence.

It's already been addressed. Keeping repeating it doesn't make it any more relevant.

Solar radiation has been increasing over the eons and will continue to do so. The biosphere has responded with lower CO2 rates (increased temperature increases the processes that convert CO2 to rock.)

 

[angelo]

Solar radiation will keep increasing regardless of what humanity does, until eventually it will fry all the inner planets. But that's billions of years away. But the sun is the main driver of Earth's climate. In fact many scientists would agree that it's the Earth's warming that produces more CO2, not the minute amount [ 2.5 % ] produced by human activity.

 

[repoman]

Solar radiation will keep increasing regardless of what humanity does, until eventually it will fry all the inner planets. But that's billions of years away. But the sun is the main driver of Earth's climate. In fact many scientists would agree that it's the Earth's warming that produces more CO2, not the minute amount [ 2.5 % ] produced by human activity.

Yes, and the process sequestering that carbon dioxide (especially as it will be when even more is burned and pours out of the tundra) to be in line with CURRENT solar output will take tens of thousands of years.

The sun is a long acting thermostat as is volcanism fhrough plate tectonics. We are probably the fastest thermostat the earth has seen since giant asteroid/comet strikes.

You are seeing carbon dioxide as the cause of previous temperature spikes. No, it is really the volcanism levels from plate tectonic intensity combined with the type of rock being heated by the earth. Carbonate poor rocks will lead to lower temps and carbonate rich higher temps.

 

[repoman]

Solar radiation will keep increasing regardless of what humanity does, until eventually it will fry all the inner planets. But that's billions of years away. But the sun is the main driver of Earth's climate. In fact many scientists would agree that it's the Earth's warming that produces more CO2, not the minute amount [ 2.5 % ] produced by human activity.

I will die someday so I may as well drink 15 shots of jagermeister and smoke 5 hits of crack every day.

Or for the planet, there is uranium naturally occurring so why not just explode all of our nukes and have a good fireworks show?

I promise not to laugh if you admit you have been wrong all this time.

Also CO2 went from 280 ppm to 405 ppm and that is all from us.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Solar radiation will keep increasing regardless of what humanity does, until eventually it will fry all the inner planets. But that's billions of years away. But the sun is the main driver of Earth's climate. In fact many scientists would agree that it's the Earth's warming that produces more CO2, not the minute amount [ 2.5 % ] produced by human activity.

The sun isn't warming things fast enough to explain what we see. I only brought it up because you brought up the old, irrelevant bit about CO2 being higher in the past.

 

[Elixir]

Victoria Falls - December 4, 2019



Nothing to see, move right along...

 

[lpetrich]

Here's a little fact that's not nor can be easily refuted.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been on a downward trend for millions of years, from many times today's almost historical low. If oceans have absorbed much of this CO2 , they would have become much more acidic, yet limestone, corals and exoskeletons continued to grow, not be dissolved out of existence.

Notice the timescale - MILLIONS of years. Not a few tens of years.

There is a natural effect that has kept the Earth's surface at a roughly constant temperature for at least 380 million years. That is the time over which the Earth has had forests - both tropical and temperate forests.

It's the  Carbonate–silicate cycle. If the Earth gets too warm, then it has more weathering and more erosion, and more incorporation of atmospheric carbon dioxide in carbonate-containing sediments. This consumes atmospheric CO2. But if the Earth is not very warm, then CO2 from volcanoes and the like can accumulate.

This effect has kept the Earth's low-latitude temperatures on an even keel for all those 380 million years of forests.

However, this effect has a reaction time of around a million years, MUCH greater than what we are currently doing.