heartbroken that John  Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 am
content: 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.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 02:41:08 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amI suspect you're right. These kinds of topics tend to descend into chaos. At the end of the day, regardless of one's beliefs/opinions one way or another, it's an area of science which is relatively new and rapidly changing. Ultimately, anything we can do to make this place more habitable is a good thing, not just a fixation on CO2 emissions. Our reliance on plastics that simply get thrown out is one change I've personally made. Instead of food containers that crack or absorb smells/colours, I've opted for glass containers which are far more durable (if you look after them) and easier to keep clean. Or consider buying quality over quantity when it comes to household appliances and other goods.I rarely even come close to filling my kerbside rubbish bin. Usually just a small bag or two at most each week. In contrast, my recycling is always full and I usually have to utilise next door's recycle bin as well.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 04:13:25 am
content: Yup we only have one earth.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 04:31:49 am
content: @OP you just created a clickbait topic to exactly start and enjoy a flamewar, didnt ya

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:52:44 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amThere is a global conspiracy of climate scientists to make their work look more important that it actually is (it's not) by cherry picking data and drumming up doomsday hysteria.By using climate science sources youareusing conspiracy sources. Your whole logic is flawed.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 06:25:54 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amBecause you have been mind conditioned, and guilt-tripped based on cherry-picked information, such that now you take emotional damage when somebody begs to differ from the mainstream doctrine, and you take attitude based on propaganda only. Maybe your guy (never heard of him) smelled bullish, that's why.CO2is about politics and economic control, and taxes. It's about money and power. If you look at a different time scale, you'll find a different picture. You'll find there is no scientific certitude (as mainstream media claims to be), and no hard evidence humans can influence climate, certainly not with CO2taxes.Climate "facts" and climate politics claim to be based on science, in reality they are based on ignorance, and on playing with people's emotions.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 07:23:35 am
content: You say "I don't understand" but still appear to be so certain about him being wrong and some others being right. Why?So a person whose expertise and opinions you trust says something that opposes your current worldview. Instead of getting interested in hearing out what he's saying, you basically treat him like he's dead to you, cancelled, to the point of you having to be "heartbroken". Why do you do this to yourself?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.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 07:48:29 am
content: I didn't know of John Clauser but in seeking some info on what this thread is about I found this Newsweek article which contained these quotes from JChttps://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-believe-climate-crisis-has-speech-canceled-1815020"I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Clauser said during at Quantum Korea. "The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena."According to the Co2 Coalition, Clauser made similar comments in the past, including: "In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."I am not more interested in reading about JC and his opinions on climate change. He is entitled to have opinions and isn't claiming more at least in those quotes. I think he is wrong but I am more convinced the reason behind these beliefs is money. Either he is paid to hold them or he hopes to be.

author: eutectique
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 07:53:10 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amBecause he has facts.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 08:59:54 am
content: IMO the computer modeling software based on the malthusianism theory is the problem.how do you know the weather will be like in 50ys?this is at the core of the global conspiracy of the so-called 98% of climate scientists.or the so-called climate doomsday panic in the corporate mass media.science should be open to new evidence. not a closed case political dogma that can not be tested.the science of climate cooling was popular in the 1960s.malthusianism theory is just that a theory, popular with the ideology of globalists.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:22:44 am
content: I think at the end of the day what we think is not going to make a difference.There are billions of people living in conditions that most here would not accept. There people are more worried about their next meal then emissions. Whether we like it or not fossil fuels are a low technology way they can improve their lives. First world countries may choose not to sell it to them, but plenty of other countries will sell it and it will get burned and the emissions will increase.There is not enough copper in the world so everyone can have the same standard of living. Again so fossil fuels will continue to be burnt. Aluminium can be used for lower efficiency but it takes lots of energy to get clean metal from ore.I think the majority of people in first world countries do live in a bubble world and do not tend to think too much.Of course all this is but a simulation anyway, so there really is no such thing as emissions, or even planet earth for that matter, or other people.

author: BrokenYugo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:47:32 am
content: Like every scam and conspiracy theory (which are themselves often just cover for scams), there is a built in intelligence test to weed out those who will see through it. Being smart in one area does not make one moral, or smart in other areas, if anything it seems to go the other way, especially for the latter.It's one of those things about society you just have to compartmentalize and ignore, or make your whole life about fighting it. Some people do nutty, degrading, things for money and attention, ignorance is celebrated, etc.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:49:49 am
content: Lot's of mart people join these climate causes. Why? It might not even be because of the science.Let's say you agree, that man made climate change is happening. Even then, the policies and the solutions provided today are moronic. They don't address the problem. They lead to a worse quality of life. They are downright malicious and nefarious, with some groups calling for the extermination of hundreds of millions of people, so called "depopulation" (I just threw up a bit).My bank sent me a new card, from recycled plastic. Great, all that 10g plastic saved. 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. They ban petrol cars, while a plug-in hybrid can save 90% of the petrol usage, and costs half as much. And they force electric cars, while spending 1/10th of the price of that isolating old buildings saving orders of magnitude more energy. It's all greenwashing, and the policies are made by idiots who are virtue signalling without actually solving the problem. Or even making it much worse.Oh, and of course if you question all this than you are immediately a nazi.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:53:02 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on August 01, 2023, 06:25:54 amReally refreshing to know others can see straight through the BS.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:59:50 am
content: Well, I didn't expect these answers. I thought this group was more reasonable.I guess i do buy into the BS. CO2 warming is absolutely a thing. And the occurrence of record extreme weather around the world just happens to be a coincidence?I don't think so.The group he has joined is clearly NOTHING but a political org that is attacking climate science not with actual science but propaganda. Why is there no actual real science for them to use to persuade that there is no crisis.That's all I have to say.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 12:02:47 pm
content: Amen.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 12:20:37 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 11:59:50 amSo you keep repeating the same mistake. People youtrust, some maybe for years of mutual understanding, and they disagree and give a different viewpoint on one matter. What do you choose to do:1) stop for a moment. Think carefully. These people have been right before. Why they now say what they say? What do they think? Maybe they do have a point? Maybe the matter is indeed complicated and multi-faceted.or2) these people are all unreasonable! They have gone nuts, or maybe they always were full of BS! The mainstream media I follow, which lives off clicks, and the "scientific community" as reported through said media,mustknow better than these experts I personally trustedAnd you choose 2. Why?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 12:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amI have no idea who this guy is or who that group is, but what I do know is that a lot of people lately (including those in the science fields) are getting rather sick and tied of all the extreme climate fear being shoved down everyone's throat, and having their lives impacted or potentially impacted whether they like it or not.It is absolutely possible to "pro environment", "pro climate change" etc yet be "anti fear mongering"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.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 12:30:38 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 11:59:50 amWho said otherwise? Some do, I know, but not everyone you are grouping together. A sane person can reach the conclusion that minimizing CO2 emissions would be an extremely good idea,withouthaving to subscribe to the idea of there being a serious crisis including significant sea level rise, increase of climate-related deaths (while the opposite is actually true), loss of tillable land (we don'texactlyknow; there are absolutely no signs of this happening; odds are good the opposite will happen), etc.The uncertainty factor in climate change alone, plus political instability of fossil fuels are reasons enough to minimize fossil fuel use. And reducing fossil fuel use for heating and transport purposes are the key points. We should concentrate on these two fully, and avoid getting sidetracked.The thing is, while we concentrate on fear-mongering, we also concentrate on doing things that are ineffective in CO2 reduction, but cause mental stress and reduce our living standards.

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 01:37:58 pm
content: The whole "green movement" is a scam and an idiologic stupidity.It does not make any difference if we abolish petrol cars in Germany, in Europe or even in the whole western world...It does not make any difference if we prohibit the use of a fireplace or carbon based heating in Europe......This list could go on.Any rational human will recognize that the carbon fingerprint of western societies is ridicule to the potential carbon fingerprint of the third world, once it starts having the same life quality as we have. What if every Indian or Chinese person has it's own car (like we western people have), it's own electronics (TV, phone, laptop, etc.) and eats a beef per day? And why wouldn't they be entitled to the same standards as we?I am not denying climate changes, but:1) The climate changes naturally on planet Earth. There have been ice ages and hot ages before humans.2) The problem is not with "mother Earth": Earth will continue, no matter what, it is the humans that may be unfit to live in an altered Earth.3) The single most important issue, that nobody seems to want to acknoledge, is that there are already too many human beings on Earth! And the growth is exponential! We are 8 billion people now, soon we will be 10 billion. In 1950 we were just 2.5 billion people.Why doesn't anyone speak about the population size? Easy:1) We live in a world run by a huge pyramid scheme, where today's retirement plans are paid by the tomorrows tax payers. We need an increasing population to avoid the system to crash.2) In order to pay interest rates, we need to grow the economy, so that more is produced and yesterday's loans can be paid with interest today.3) The richer can only get richer if there are more people.This cycle needs to be broken. Retirment should only be paid to the extend of what you have put aside. That money is to be invested in a secure way. But you should not receive more than your savings.Interest rates need to be abolished.Migration has to be stopped. We cannot compensate the lack of births in western countries by importing masses of people from third world countries.This planet needs less people and every couple should have only one child. There, I said it.Will it contribute to the population growing older? Yes it will.How will we finance it? I don't care - people need to work until they die or make their own retirement plan.What cannot continue is this exponential grow in population, that combined with increasing living standards will absorve more than this planet has to offer.

author: rhb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 02:06:04 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amI received an MS in geology. The people who spend their entire lives studying the earth don't agree with AGW. We simply got fed up with idiots who can't even do simple arithmetic. BTW MS = Master of Science. A "consensus" is not created by shouting down and insulting opposing views. And some fool claiming a "consensus" is no different from their claiming the moon is made of green cheese.Sea level has risen by ~600 ft in GoM in the last 15,0000 years. Why don't you try converting to inches and dividing to get the average rise per year? Then ask yourself a simple question. Why aren't the port cities of ancient history completely flooded? Do you think fossil fuels were being consumed 15,000 years ago? By whom?The earth is over 4 billion years old. It is real, not a computer simulation. AGW is just a poorly thought out simulation. Arithmetic time again. How much is 15,000 divided by 4 billion? Can you identify *any* hit songs after listening to less than 1 millisecond?I got banned for pointing out the same arithmetic several years ago. Funny how the pro-AGW posters get a pass, but those with relevant education and experience are"conspiracy theorists".Now you come along distressed that someone might have realized that AGW is complete BS replete with forged and altered data that has and is NEVER made public. Real scientists provide the information needed to replicate the results. If there is peer consensus, why are the data and computer codes not on gihub?Because that would make it easy to *prove* the AGW fraud.Reg

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 02:26:44 pm
content: I remember from one of Thunderf00ts videos a few years ago where he was speaking about climate change and something that "it is not the earth that is f*****" from an article he read somewhere but it's us humans and something else about it recovering but we will all be dead before it does.

author: rhb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 02:40:08 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amI've never heard of John Clauser. If you consider him an "intellectual giant in the science community", why do you think he is wrong and you are right? Why has he not caused you to examine and perhaps change *your* opinion. What field of science are you in?BTW There is no such thing as "the science community". There are scientists. They are human social animals. They congregate in groups based upon shared interests. Having a Nobel prize in physics is NOT proof of ANY knowledge of even basic intro geology any more than an MS in geology qualifies me as an expert biology.

author: eugene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 03:24:47 pm
content: Quote from: eutectique on August 01, 2023, 07:53:10 amLOL! Even he never claimed to have facts.EDIT: Science deniers are all "it's just a matter of opinion. Why can't you guys handle someone disagreeing with your opinion" And then one comes along that didn't get the memo.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 03:29:45 pm
content: Quote from: rhb on August 01, 2023, 02:06:04 pmBut laymen are easy to fool. Open your TV on National Geographic and you'll see them repeat a documentary about how Venice is sinkingbecause 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.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 04:21:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 01, 2023, 12:22:48 pmThe 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 forfuture 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".

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 04:21:47 pmBravo, 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 forthisclaim. While the climate models are relatively well tested, thecrop modelsare 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 theburden 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 theroot causesfor 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 calledconspiracy 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 anyoneWhile mitigating thecontributing factorsis 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.QuoteYep, ecoterrorism. In Australia specifically, see e.g.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51125898. Note that police has been able toproveover 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 thoseuseful idiotsto 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.)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:06:15 pm
content: 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 2007IPCC report 2023The 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.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:30:21 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pmDisagree. 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.)Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pmEven 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.Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pmBroadly agreed, I wonder if the fire fighting groups have considered using thermal drones to scan for people leaving BBQs etc burning.Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pmThis 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.Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 05:05:52 pmI 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-changethis is also citing US data, so it's curious there is a disagreement.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:31:51 pm
content: 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, butsilencing unwelcomed views.Since you have nothing more to say, imho it is better to close this topic.Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 11:59:50 am

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:42:38 pm
content: 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.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 05:56:02 pm
content: I'm with hans "We cant keep using these non-renewable resources forever"

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 06:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on August 01, 2023, 05:56:02 pmWell, 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 haveyoudone 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.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 07:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 06:57:45 pmIt'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?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 07:59:26 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:49:49 amOn 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).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 08:10:35 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 07:23:35 amIt 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.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 09:23:06 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 03:29:45 pmThat 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 yearFoundation sink rate = 1 to 2mm per yearhttps://www.venezialines.com/blog/venice-sinking-will-happen/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venice/solutions.html

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 09:25:10 pm
content: @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 theartinstead of a process that can be forced at will.Quote from: Siwastaja on August 01, 2023, 06:57:45 pmYes, I don't mean to say its rocket science, even though I tend to blab on for ages.QuoteBatteries, 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.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 09:38:56 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 04:21:47 pmYes 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.Quote from: nctnico on August 01, 2023, 07:59:26 pmOh, 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.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 09:38:56 pmYes, 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 mortgageson 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.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:15:27 pm
content: 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?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:37:14 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amNo wonder you dont understand!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.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 10:44:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pmAre 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. 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.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: MT on August 01, 2023, 10:37:14 pmMisleading 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."

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:08:02 pm
content: Well.

author: rhb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:08:35 pm
content: 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

author: alm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: rhb on August 01, 2023, 11:08:35 pmBecause 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?Quote from: rhb on August 01, 2023, 11:08:35 pmOver 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.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2023, 11:59:03 pm
content: Yeah earliest human records are ~2900 BC.The ice melted somewhere before that according to historical sea level data/models:https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Late-Pleistocene-eustatic-sea-level-curve-constructed-from-Pacific-Gas-and-Electric_fig1_339212842https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Eustatic-sea-level-curve-for-the-last-glacial-interglacial-cycle-according-to_fig2_339212842

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 12:09:08 am
content: Quote from: rhb on August 01, 2023, 02:40:08 pmEverything 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.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 01:11:18 am
content: The politics of "climate change" are going to far, just like woke did, and just like covid did. And it's going to end just as badly.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:03:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 01:11:18 amHoping not here where intelligent ppl are.Good presentation ofthe factswill win the day...or should do.Having spent all my life closely affiliated with what nature can deliver I not only dare to challenge Gobull warming I flatly refute the BS.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:27:20 am
content: I agree that a lot of efforts of fight global warming are overcomplicated and of poor value compared to some easier efforts that seem to be largely ignored. For example, the "carbon capture" schemes that are basically scams. Except for one that isn't - planting trees.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:31:42 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 03:03:17 amThere are more guesses than "facts". And the facts that you do have to do not always point to the best way to deal with any problem.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 01, 2023, 08:10:35 pmNo, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do ispolitics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 07:47:53 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:44:58 pmExcept as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historicallyunderpredictedwarming.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:16:00 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 amAnd we saw how the unwillingness to do that during and now after covid, not only caused them to fail epicly, but it destoryed almost all of the communities respect in science (and politics, if there was any respect there to begin with).I see this same thing happening again with climate science and climate politics.And I'm an environmentilist who's married to an environmental scientist.This is all going to come-a-gutsa-badly, but it'll be a slow train wreck over the next few decades as they attempt to push people to breaking point.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:26:39 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2023, 07:47:53 amHere is a graph cumulating 102 different models they run. There is one model that is relatively OK.Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 02, 2023, 03:27:20 amYeah, fascinating that the solutions that don't provide any profit are the least talked about, isn't it.Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 03:31:42 amI really don't know how facts could succeed, when we scared young people to the point that they have depression and existential fear due to this. It's all just emotions at this point.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:48:14 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 02, 2023, 10:26:39 amThat's a model of warming in the troposphere,which is not the same thing. Global warming is about the warming of the atmosphere (troposphere included) causing warming of the planetas a whole(what the IPCC is concerned about because of crop failures, sea level rise and weather are strongly influenced by both surface temperature and tropospheric temperature.) And the IPCC models have underpredicted this: it is warming faster than anticipated.This looks interesting:https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data/

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 11:16:15 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 amCouldn't be further from the truth though. It may not be the duty of a single scientist to single out everyone's other fault in their paper introduction to make their article more stand out (its professional suicide), but there are certainly survey papers and collective studies which has the main goal of going into the overall landscape of a scientific area.E.g. medical studies aren't also concluded from a single trial. Each trial will have it weaknesses and limitations, such as population selection or scale, and there is always more research warranted. At some point someone will write up a review paper of say 10 studies, highlight the flaws and weaknesses, the contradicting and communal findings, and ultimate summarize what consensus facts and inconclusive findings can be established, and thereby what future work is needed. There are plenty of studies and even dedicated professorships and study groups that work on translating science into policy.Take renewable energy. One of the best things we could do is to transition from a supply-regulated to a demand-regulated market. But how many people want to think about when energy is surplus so they can run their washing machine and dish washer? Its a solution we desperately need, but very little incentive for people to do so. Energy is our second currency, and politicians like to stick to old fashioned morals by subsidizing the crap out of anything that's non-sustainable.Politicians should stay as far away from science as they can. If you see any politician that is citing science articles; run. They have contradicting stakes to scientists. Politicians are not indifferent, because if they would be, they would not join a party and be classified as left/right or conservative/progressive, and they would not broadcast hot takes to win voters.Bureaucrats, jurists and other policy workers (like think tanks) should use the latest scientific findings to make realistic proposals (to the aforementioned politicians) that can help the society forward. And these are also the people that put off these politicians on the dumb ideas about how the world would work.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 11:41:28 am
content: Unfortunately there is no good science behind the many articles about global warming.It is very hard to even attempt to verify the basic data that they use. Temperature Readings are subject to all sorts of variables such as the infringement of concrete and asphalt on the measuring station and the maintenance of the measuring station.Then there are computer programs that smooth the data??? You would have to look at each line of code in the computer "models" to evaluate their veracity, just to start.Then there is the Hypothesis that CO2 causes some sort of greenhouse effect. To make this into a scientific theory you would have to prove by experiment showing that raising the CO2 on an experimental planet would increase temps. You would have to do this while maintaining space weather and especially the sun's output to very close specifications. Not done and I do not think can be done.Inferences about past CO2 levels and climate are just inferences and must be viewed with other climate variables such as sun output. This is also very complicated. I do not believe the ancient Mesopotanians maintained good solar weather records.So there is no way to create a scientific experiment to prove the hypothesis. Unless someone has a earth sized planet which we can experiment with while maintaining a control planet.So we are left with a bunch of numbers or statistics from history and Ice measurements. Then Analysis.This is NOT the Scientific Method. And statistical analysis is more complicated than most people think and frequently the wrong statistical model is used for analysis. I have repeatedly witnessed this.So now we have millionaires making more money preaching to us about global warmng while burning jet fuel llike crazy going from lecture to lecture.Do any of the supposed scientists even know how much CO2 is absorbed by crops vs an old unattended field vs a climax forest??? I doubt it.Compound this with the recent debacle about the COVID Pandemic. Does anyone believe the "Scientists" and Government Officials anymore???Back in the 1950s nuclear energy was the hope for clean energy. Then it was poison. Now it looks like our best option again. I do believe that is is a really good option. I will not go into the vagarities of energy consumption using windmills and solar panels and their "Carbon Footprint" and pollution related to their use and manufacture and disposal vs direct use of the carbon fuel. I do believe that these sources can have value in maintaining the grid, although it is probably more limited than most people think.Having said all of this, I do believe we should conserve our present energy thru efficient machines and houses and especially better transmission lines and an efficient grid.Did not mention Hydro. OK it is very good source of energy.But I love it when Hydro powered countries like Norway lecture us about oil consumption while making Billions from their oil and gas fields.OK, enough ranting, I have to go back and look thru the news forums and needlessly use energy motivating electrons to do my bidding.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 11:58:03 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 02, 2023, 10:26:39 amYep, that's why I said it's gone too far, and they are only pushing harder and harder with the fear. It's now officially "Global Boiling" according to the UN chiefI for one am done with it all this fear being pushed. We had a lifetimes worth of that crap during covid. And we had enough of the fear of being "cancelled" during the woke wars.The more they push the fear the more people are going to push back, and that includes people who believe in it and want to help fix things.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 12:15:38 pm
content: Two things.1 Narcissistic people frequently need to take opposition opinions. You can't be the smartest guy in the room by agreeing with the consensus.2 The issue triggers peoples unconscious death anxiety. I think it's evident by the reaction intensity in these replies.Neither impacts the obvious truth that the climate is changing rapidly and this just so happens to coincide with high levels of trapped CO2 being dug up and thrust into the atmosphere.I have been hearing about the collapse of global warming theory for 15 years. Each and every year the consensus of the people grows that we are damaging our environment.Carry on with the denial if it makes you feel better.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 12:34:57 pm
content: A few things:1 The most narcissistic person I have known, with all the usual traits of manipulation and finally crime, was a heavy preacher of climate change / climate crisis and cited heavily the IPCC reports. Once you think about it, it's obvious why: narcissists love being in control of the lives of others, and guilt is powerful tool for that. Also they love being admired, and "being right" is essential. You can't publicly do stuff which makes you an outcast in society if you want to have supply of intelligent and capable people to manipulate.2 I don't see much denial about global warming in this thread. You clearly did not read the replies, did not understand them, or did notwantto understand them.3 Basically calling others narcissists is extremely rude. No one else resorted to name calling, we have adhered to subject and discussed it honestly, even if our opinions differ. Why do you behave like this?4 You can continue behaving like a child, "boohoo you are all stupid and wrong", but you are the one who suffers the most. Why are you so mentally dishonest with yourself?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 12:58:19 pm
content: A few points:The temperature of the atmosphere isn't changing much. Stratospheric temperatures are cooling, whist the troposphere is warming, which is exactly what we should expect to happen. Of course it's the tropospheric temperature which is important to us humans, although the stratosphere does affect weather patterns so mustn't be overlooked.If the temperature of the troposphere rises, average global precipitation will also rise. It's true changes in atmospheric circulation might make some areas more prone to drought, but on the whole agriculture should benefit from more rainfall. The downside is flooding will aso be more of a problem,Historically human population correlates positively with higher temperatures, which boost agricultural productivity and reduce the number of cold-related deaths, which is higher than those due to excessive heat.Extreme heat, will always be balanced to some extent by extreme cold, so if one region is hot, another will be cool. There's been a lot of hype about the recent heatwave in southern Europe, yet much of Northern Europe and part of Asia, has had cooler than average temperatures this summer. It's caused by blocking events. A high in the North Atlantic, near Greenland, pushed the jet stream further south, than usual, diverting low pressure over the UK, pushing the subtropical ridge further south and east, resulting in extreme heat there.The pandemic was a classic example of group think. Many public health authorities, along with other institutions became overly focussed on preventing the spread of the virus, whilst ignoring the negative consequences of their polices on wider society. Many of their policies were not evidence-based: mask mandates, vaccinating those with prior immunity, school closures etc. This caused a backlash by those who were sceptical of the authorities, driving many of them to become more extreme in their views. This has made more sceptical of the mainstream media and much of academia. I now take what organisations such as the WHO and IPCC with a pinch of salt.Most of those who have responded to this thread, questioning climate change, appear to be fairly reasonable. None of them come across as science deniers. My persional view is that CO2is affecting the climate, but most policies aimed at dealing with it, will cause more harm, than good, as has been the case with the pandemic.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pm
content: Ok, I get it.Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather".I hope your right, cause that is exactly what we are going to do.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 02:15:53 pm
content: Blame Al Gore, he started this illusion.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 02:38:23 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pmThe climate has always been changing. That is a well-known fact.I do not see how deforestation for the sake of production of biofuels helps in reducing CO2 emissions.I do not see how burning hydrocarbons to mine, refine and transport elements for EV battery production helps in reducing CO2 emissions.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:11:41 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 02, 2023, 02:38:23 pmNobody is arguing otherwise, but climate skeptics love their strawmen with this statement. The question is not whether the climate is warming or cooling, but whether it is warming or cooling too much, and it appears that it is, and that humans are the direct cause of the vast majority of that warming.Quote from: vad on August 02, 2023, 02:38:23 pmWell, it probably doesn't - at least if you consider land-use changes as part of effective CO2 emissions. However, if instead of deforestation you take, for instance, low grade waste crop and animal "leavings" and process those into biofuels, then it can be carbon neutral. Not carbon negative, but by not emitting any net CO2 it is better than the alternative.Biofuels are a very tricky area to get right. Algae biofuels are the holy grail, but attempts at commercialisation so far have been unsuccessful.Quote from: vad on August 02, 2023, 02:38:23 pmSurely you can see the simple relation of fixed cost + ongoing cost, it is not just a fixed cost. Call it K1+nK2, and K3+nK4 is cost of fossil car, both sum of manufacturing and running emissions over 'n' years, if K1+nK2 is less than K3+nK4 then extra CO2 emissions to produce EV batteries can be a net winner.In Europe the figure 'n' is about 2-3 years for EV batteries. In China it is closer to 3-4 years due to higher levels of coal on Chinese powergrid. Still, a car lasts ~15 years, so generally a winner.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:17:41 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pmIs that really your honest conclusion, given that it was not only me who stressed that it's most important to chooseeffectivemeasures against CO2 rise, while fearmongering actually hinders such rational decision-making? Or are you throwing a temper tantrum with your failed attempt to collect like-minded people for your cancel mob against mr. Clauser? I really hope the latter is not the case.You can also choose to ignore oversimplifiers like vad instead of treating all of us as "man-made climate change deniers". They are entitled to their opinion and quite frankly it's not more wrong than yours, just in the opposite direction. The actual truth is much more convoluted and representation of the truth subject to change when times change, which is also why I would be careful to label people as narcissists or bad people just because you seem to disagreenow, on some matters; especially if you were honest with your opening sentence, "I don't understand". Don't dig a hole too deep for yourself because it might be that others have some viable points after all and you have to live with the rest of us, on this same planet. Listen what others have to say instead of condemning.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:44:25 pm
content: vad's points about biofuels and EV battery production are fair. Biofuels require careful balance, so that we use waste to make that biofuel in the first place; even better would be to minimize that waste. Whenever biofuels are too heavily subsidized, there is risk of replacing food production with biofuels so increasing food price for the poor in order to offer better self-consciousness for fuel-heavy SUV-owning class. Also risk of deforestation due to biofuels must be taken seriously to make sure it does not happen; biofuels in the end do not offer that great of land use efficiency, and the efficiency during use is crap, too.Then EVs. I'm definitely quite pro-EV and have been developing EV technology myself, but I don't like the trend of increasing vehicle size and weight as "allowed" by the advances in technology. This was already visible before the hybrid/EV era with 1500kg 3-liter SUVs replacing 1000kg 1.6-liter sedans as "standard family car", in that very same class who tweet about their flight shame.With apples-to-apples comparison, replacing small gasoline cars with small EVs, that are used until the battery is dead, is obviously a significant improvement in total energy use, even when you properly account for the fixed cost of making one. If combined with city planning which reduces the need for cars (remember, thatalwaysdoesn't make sense, and it's a colossally bad idea toforcethis, e.g. in the countryside / small towns), the improvement can be significant. But this isn't truly happening. If people are replacing apples with oranges, then we need to do apples-to-oranges comparison. What we see are heavy and large luxury EVs in Tesla Model S/X size, and large diesel hybrid SUVs in same size class. So don't be surprised to see critique against EVs and hybrids. Probably, given ever-increasing wind/PV production and increasing possibilities of controlling when to charge your EV, even those large luxury cars are still an improvement because the ICE baseline is so colossally bad it's easy to improve upon.But it could be so much better.You should allow people like vad to talk about the problems even if they don't represent them exactly correctly. There still is a point in this.

author: eutectique
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 03:49:52 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pmWhatactions against climate changeexactly? Increasing cost of insurance or mortgage? Would theseactionshelp to lower the yearly average temperature globally or in England only?Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pmWould you care to point to an exact paragraph, please? I could only find the following:Quote

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 04:15:19 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 03:17:41 pmNot burning fossil fuel is an effective measure against CO2 rise. You on board ?How do you get a democratic society to voluntarily accept extra costs and hardship without explaining ( fearmongering ) the risks. We don't seem to mind a little fearmongering when war is afoot.To believe ( without any proof ) that climate change will be not be a disasterous ending is itself a kinda denial. If you had sound theoretical proof that we can deal with digging up 30 million years of stored carbon and stuffing it into our atmosphere in a geological microsecond with only tolerable changes then where is it?Lets review the issue with Mr Clauser. He is cozying up to a petroleum industry supported group that spreads climate BS. It isn't a place for honorable people.I haven't identified ANYONE on this board in any posting. How are you imagining who I am targeting?I still don't understand how anyone with serious credentials who doesn't need to sell out suddenly decides to align himself with dishonest political organizations.Surely there is a large body of credible research done by those who are qualified that makes the counter case against significant damage to climate.Clauser has his own research claiming that cloud cover will largely negate CO2 heat trapping by reflecting energy into space. You hear that VENUS! your not as hot as ya think!

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 04:37:19 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky onTodayat 04:15:19 pm>Quote from: Siwastaja onTodayat 03:17:41 pm>Quote from: snarkysparky onTodayat 02:12:31 pmI guess I am not in the category "Most" , I suppose I could feel badly that I am a victim of this micro aggression. But I am used to not being in the category of "Most"In response to the statements about mortgage companies and flood plains. Here in US the government has insurance for these properties. The only other company that I know of that covers flood plain properties here in US is Lloyd's.Loyd's s much less expensive than the government insurance. This situation has been in place for a lot longer than the current "climate change" issue, nothing new at least to me and my personal experience with these insurances.

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 04:48:22 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 11:58:03 amRespect Sir!

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 05:04:26 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 04:15:19 pmI might be a closet optimist, but by offering alternatives and showing how they are superior. This is already happening with electric vehicles. People only need to look at George Bush / Vladimir Putin and they understand fossil fuels come with other costs than this abstract concept of climate change. The ball is rolling very well without fearmongering. On the other hand, we are wasting mental resources in stuff like making a huge deal out of replacing plastic drinking straws, which could have been simply recycled into energy, offsetting other fossil fuel use directly, with paper based alternatives which end up in whatever waste.Or we make a big deal out of replacing cow milk with plant based substitutes which have been independently shown to produce no less CO2 emissions than the dairy product when the cattle is fed with modern animal feed (Merja Saarinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland). Even if the feed is not optimized, in big picture this is totally insignificant.Again, we must concentrate our efforts in HVAC of buildings and road transport of people and goods, and this is exactly what many of us are working on.QuoteI would rather look at what he issayingthan who you think he is friends with; identity politics is dangerous. The excerpts as quoted in this thread seemed completely reasonable to me. Maybe he is wrong on something; it's not the end of the world and he doesn't need to get cancelled for that. For that matter, remember that scaremongers get a lot of facts wrong all the time, too, yet you don't see anyone wanting to cancel them.QuoteIt doesn't matter - you name-called in plural so at least two people, and I did read every message on this thread and I don't thinkanyonedeserved that name calling. Everyone else has been acting civil about this. This is why I wrote my comment. Had I seen truly hostile comments against you, I would have assumed you referred to them, and would have not commented.I also commented about your behavior because your opening post itself was about your feelings against a certain person, not as much climate change itself.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 05:13:16 pm
content: And BTW, fear, fear-induced adrenalin and cortisol are good drivers in acute crisis situations like being chased by a wild boar or something. They are completely counter-productive in long-term situations because cortisol slowly incapacitates, and that "long-term" means something that lasts longer than a few hours or days. Based on how human hormone system and basic psychology works, if we want to solve the "climate crisis" that must happen through positive engineering. Instead, we are incapacitating the whole next generation by telling them they have no hope, and that boycotting education somehow helps.We need to wake up and understand that we are actually on the right track already, and keep focused on the right things. If you tell people that the hope is already basically lost, what motivation they have to fix things? I can see signs in our societies that we are in the "party until the end" mode. Normal people are now encouraged to take more and more debt, use drugs, sell your body (if you are a woman, instead of educating yourself) for some more partying money. But I admit there might be an observation bias here, maybe this is nothing new, so take this comment with a grain of salt as a discussion opener (i.e., I'm asking if others are seeing this pattern).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 06:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 01:11:18 amTrue. In the Netherlands there are no middle ground political parties left to vote for. Either you vote for capitalists, leftists /socialists, greenists or ban-islam-ists.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 06:46:39 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 amIt is not pseudo science, it is a snapshot. A long time ago people thought the earth was flat (snapshot 1), then they realised that based on scientific evidence the earth is a sphere (snapshot 2). After another while due to improvement measurement techniques it turns out the earth is not a perfect sphere, but sphere shaped (snapshot 3). How close to a perfect sphere? Last time I checked nobody seems to know.It always works like this: scientists do research and publish results. Then commities like IPCC, WHO, national health institutes, SI organisation, etc, etc sift through it to figure out which results have merit or not. From this sifting process, you get reports which are used by governments to base their policies on (which are based on reports from a wide variety of research fields).You can probably find scientific proof that de best thing to do for the planet is kill 95% of the human population. A less extreme example is from today's paper: a German scientists claims that increasing the fuel price to 100 euro per liter would stop people from using a car. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that doing that would bring the economy to a grinding halt because people need cars to get to their work.In the end the choice is up to the politicians but they will need decent input to base their decission on.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 08:09:22 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:04:26 pmPlastic is generally made from a finite resource, isn't it? So 'recycling into energy' would be a net loss and we'd have to make more of it. In contrast, paper is pretty much zero sum in that the waste can be used to grow more (or we can 'recycle into energy'). Whatever, the massive garbage patch in the middle of the Pacific doesn't seem to have much paper since it's biodegradable, but there is lots of plastic.If the root problem is that we're not turning plastic into energy then we surely need to start doing that. Or reusing it instead of creating more.Elsewhere in the thread someone says:Quote from: Someone elseThat seems to be a common mindset, but what's missed is that there are overtwenty-two billioncards in circulation, so at 10g apiece that's potentially2,000,000,000Kgof plastic reused instead of floating around the oceans, and a consequent reduction in raw materials. Halve it because of the chip (though many cards are plain plastic) and it's still 'quite a lot'.This is how we got into this mess in the first place - some person or family or even town polluting the place has little effect, but industrialise that process and replicate it by a huge amount and it starts to affect even the biggest unmovable things. To counter it, doesn't that suggest a similar effort in the other direction is required?On the one hand, none of us is going to have any detectable effect on anything, but all of us could make the difference. And this seems to be where we will end up because there cannot be consensus so 'all' will only ever be a tiny subset. Unless something really dramatic turns up, and I think it will be too late then.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pmBurning fossil fuels have been responsible for the greatest rise in living standards ever. There is no way to stop using them, given today's technology, without a huge reduction in living standards, which would disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. An authoritarian government would be required to achieve such a goal and I'm far more fearful of that, than I am higher temperatures and precipitation, which will save more lives, than it would take.I'm not saying we should emit greenhouses willy nilly. If it's easy to find an alternative, then it makes sense, but the damaging net zero targets should end. Invest in nuclear energy would be a start. Solar doesn't make any sense for much of the northern hemisphere, as it doesn't work in winter, when it's most needed. Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 09:27:47 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pmYes. Absolutely. The times when we were "carbon neutral" and only using renewables was most of humanity before discovering fossil fuels.Fossil fuels have allowed us to get where we are now. Including obviously the growth of the world's population.Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pmYes, and I'm pretty sure we can do much better over time as long as we invest (wisely) in that. Absolutely no doubt about it.Disclaimer: the following is 100% only opinion.My opinion on this is that the most pressing goal of many of the leaders of this "climate change movement" is not to lower our emissions or become carbon-neutral, but it is to drastically reduce the human population, and that's consistent with what you mentioned above: the first, immediate effect of drastically reducing our use of fossil fuels is not going to be less CO2 in the atmosphere (which has big inertia), but a drastic reduction of standards of living and relatively rapidly, of the overall population.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 09:31:03 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pmYep, another inconvenient truth.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 09:43:59 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 02, 2023, 09:27:47 pmMakes no sense, you are entering conspiracy territory. Many countries try to encourage higher birth rates and straight up give you money for having a child.Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 09:31:03 pmWind turbines can pay back in terms of co2 in less than a year.Saying improvements *need* to be made an odd statement. Should recycling be improved? Yes. Should we stop deploying wind turbines in their current form due to existing recycling methods being difficult? no, not at all.https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/13/wind-turbine-never-generate-much-energy-cost-build/8423146002/https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2022.1060130/full"The results demonstrate that the payback periods are much lower than the lifetime of the wind turbine, the important role of EPBT and GPBT in addressing climate change and energy savings."

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 09:49:52 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pmIts not just living standards. Its population. 1/2 the nitrogen in your body is said to have been through the Haber process. Before that was developed limited high fertility resources, like guano, were being depleted rapidly, as technology allowed the population to grow rapidly after 1769 (i.e. James Watt's key patent). If you want to run down fossil fuel consumption faster than alternatives can be developed and deployed you are calling for mass murder. The world's population is going to decline massively over the next century. Some countries are likely to have less than 10% of their current population, unless their is a massive reversal in current trends. I don't want to see a population reduction by mass starvation.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 09:52:24 pm
content: Q's to all1. Can the lunar orbit affect our weather ?2. What rare lunar event occured in 2023 ?The effects of this event took some years to peak and will take some years to wane.Are scientists factoring these uncontrollable factors intoanyclimate calculations ?

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:26:42 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 09:52:24 pmA few seconds of google would answer your question:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/12/how-the-moon-influences-temperatures-on-earthQuote

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:31:59 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on August 02, 2023, 10:26:42 pmDid I mention heating/cooling effects, no and for good reason.Instead the lunar effect on weather that is now falsely linked to Gobull warming is where you need focus your studies along with the 2023 major lunar event.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2023, 10:55:32 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on August 02, 2023, 10:26:42 pmIt's almost as if climate scientists know what they're talking about, being that they study the climate for their whole professional lives. Crazy, right?Another factor: human emissions of aerosols are accounted for. These slightly cool the climate, by around 0.1-0.2C. It buys us about 5 extra years of inaction. And yes, there have been studies on whether releasing aerosols to fix the climate is an option. It's a pretty desperate one, and does nothing for ocean acidification, but if carbon emissions don't slow down it may be our only option.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 12:22:16 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 10:31:59 pmPeople who are actually interested in discussion don't disguise their point. If you want to make a claim, do it directly, and provide some recognized form of evidence.https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210820-the-subtle-influence-of-the-moon-on-earths-weatherhttps://www.washington.edu/news/2016/01/29/phases-of-the-moon-affect-amount-of-rainfall/There is no real useful discussion happening in this thread.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 03:03:48 am
content: I REallllly didn't want to discuss the varied theories of global warming.The psychological aspect is infinitely more interesting. Why people take the positions they do, and how inflexible they become.What are their motivations?Reminder of my original point. A giant of early quantum mechanics theory has gone to align himself with a political propaganda organization.Does Clauser really believe the outcome of unregulated burning of fossil fuels will only be a small matter and that the main goal should be the concern for all those who are suffering from want of food and warmth. I get that there is massive suffering in the world. Seems easy to fix if we wanted to without burning massive amounts of CO2.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 03:51:31 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 03, 2023, 03:03:48 amThere is a good chance that there isn't. There are many countries with massive populations that are poor. Coal and gas are cheap.Even "rich" countries like China are sticking with coal. Two new plants per week it seems:https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/china-permits-two-new-coal-power-plants-per-week-in-2022/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 03:56:17 am
content: Also, when it comes to "global warming", has anyone stopped to consider the ultimate technical question, can weactuallymeasure and track the temperature of the theglobeaccurately?How do weknowwe are doing it accurately? How accurately exactly?NOTE: I am NOT syaing that the globe is not warming, I'm just asking the technical question, how do we measure this, and with what degree of precision and reliability. Because, AFAIK,everythinghinges on that.And maybe, is it excessive technical hubris to think we can even do that at all?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 04:18:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 03, 2023, 03:56:17 amYep, this is the crux of this matter especially when historical climate data has beencleansedto properly fit climate models and agendas.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 04:30:40 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on August 03, 2023, 12:22:16 amYeah well neither of those www links are any revelation to those that spent a lifetime on the land.Again I ask have the lunar effects on the earth been factored into climatic models and if not why not ?Might they blow off the Gobull warming agenda if they did ?Knowing the moon impacts on worldwide weather and the major 2023 lunar event which took decades to build and will take decades to wane has impacted NZ with climate extremes in 2023 seems a little too coincidental IMO however the next few years as weather patterns settle again will demonstrate the inaccuracies of climate modelling.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 04:42:08 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2023, 03:11:41 pmClaiming that there is 'too much' warming is an unscientific statement. Climate alarmists usually support such statements by comparing the current temperatures to cherry-picked points in time when the annual average atmospheric temperature was at its minimum in the history of observations or by referencing cherry-picked minimum estimates of historical temperatures before systematic instrumental readings began. Additionally, when presenting estimated historical data, the alarmists conveniently omit showing error ranges on hockey stick charts, which can impact the overall perspective of the data.As a physicist by education, I find it concerning when someone who claims to be a scientist presents their measurements or model predictions without including error bars on their charts.Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2023, 03:11:41 pmIndeed, the question of the million (or billion) tons of CO2 is closely tied to the K1...K4 factors. However, we must approach the estimates provided by BEV manufacturers' lobby with caution as they may not be entirely reliable. Independent sources suggest that accurate estimations are challenging, often leading to wide ranges for the carbon footprint of BEV batteries. Some estimates place the carbon footprint at around 100-200 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery.Taking the average value of 150 kg/kWh, we can calculate that a typical small sedan BEV, like the Tesla Model 3 with an 82 kWh battery, emits approximately 12 metric tons of CO2 during the production of its battery.To put this in perspective, burning one gallon of petrol produces about 9 kg of CO2. Thus, the production of the Model 3's battery is equivalent to burning about 1,300 gallons of petrol.Comparing this to a modern ICE vehicle, like the VW Jetta with a mileage of 35 mpg, it would drive about 45,000 miles (approximately 75,000 km) on 1,300 gallons of petrol.Considering that the average annual mileage driven in the EU is 11,300 km, a brand new Tesla Model 3 causes as much CO2 pollution as the average similar-sized car in the EU over a span of 6.5 years. In China, the time frame is also 6.5 years, while in the US, it's 3.5 years.However, it's important to remember that we have only addressed the impact of K1 and K3 variances here. K2 and K4 remain unexplored factors. In countries like China, Russia, and India, where fossil fuels dominate electric generation, Tesla is unlikely to catch up with comparable ICE vehicles before the battery needs replacement or the vehicle is scrapped.Furthermore, we must not ignore the additional resources required for BEV infrastructure, such as new generation plants, charging stations, grid enhancements, transformer upgrades, etc. This leads to doubts about whether the BEV revolution will significantly reduce the carbon footprint of car transportation at all.If you, unlike me, are concerned about CO2 emissions and believe that moderate climate warming is harmful to the planet, it's worth considering the implications before investing in a BEV. Choosing to keep your current ICE vehicle may at least spread the release of CO2 over many years.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 05:02:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 02, 2023, 06:46:39 pmNow here's the thing: during snapshot 1, if you wrote a paper which disagreed with "scientific consensus" of earth being flat, you were "cancelled". During snapshots 2 and 3, this was not the case anymore; the driving reason why we were able to create a better model and understand the Earth was a sphere was the change in attitudes, allowing differing viewpoints no matter how ridiculous and against the consensus they could have been.Now during our current snapshot, we are getting back in the middle ages. That's my point, this "strong consensus" through political / social means is both old and new thing, but IMHO doesn't belong to science, and actually hinders the process of creating a better model of the truth.Yes! Ignoring what I personallythinkis the truth and just looking at the discussion dynamics and scientificprocess, I'm really saying sphere-earthists of the middle ages were the climate change denials of today: both were/are being silenced because the "scientific community" is so damn sure about their own right-being, because otherwise is a disgrace.But we can choose to disagree.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 05:25:37 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 02, 2023, 08:09:22 pmThe point is: we are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels anyway. Any even remotely realistic model is only aboutreducingthis amount, maybe even significantly, maybe even by 90%. And you don't have to go to zero fossil fuels to solve the CO2 issue, that's just ridiculous. When we accept this premise, then recycling plastic as energy directly offsets the need of burning similar amount of raw fossil fuel, bringing net loss of the material itself to zero. What remains is the environmental cost (mostly energy) of turning oil into a finished plastic product, but I think it's probably even less than turning wood into a paper straw (I think the chemical process of making plastics is not that energy intensive; it's only the material itself which contains a lot of energy; I could be wrong).QuoteThis paper waste recycles poorly in practice. It ends up mixed with biowaste, plastic, metal and whatever, gets wet and smushy, and just decays somewhere, releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere (this is even the advertised point, biodegradability). Which then surely can be used to grow more trees, but then again the same people who call for paper straws also call stopping using the forests for paper production, because, and I can very well understand their point, it is easy to just cut more forest than you plant.Recycling newspapers etc. seems to work quite well at least here, but paper straws are not even allowed in the same process and even if they were no one would collect them separately, they go in mixed waste.QuoteYet, plastic as used by me never ever goes there. This is exactly like saying knives must be banned because some people commit crimes with them. The problem is, even if we reduce plastic use, those who put their plastic into the Pacific won't do that.QuoteIt's not the root problem; this is a tiny distraction, it's a tertiary thing to optimize; yet I again made the mistake of going on with this discussion. In reality we should really concentrate on HVAC and transport primarily, and industrial and agricultural processes secondarily. Everything else is too small to matter.Amdahl's law applies here, too! People think that combining many small action makes a total large impact, but this depends on how small those actions are and how many of them. These tertiary-class actions of "plastic straw replacement" size are simply too small, even if they were as effective as imagined.QuoteYou have one zero too much. Still a lot of course, just a nitpick.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 05:47:42 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 03, 2023, 04:42:08 amThis calculation seems roughly correct, there seems to be some sort of scientific consensus () of replacing ICE cars with equivalent EVs offers some 30-50% reduction in total lifecycle CO2, depending on source (ignoring biased sourced like oil or EV industry, which of course give numbers outside of this range). It's something, but it's notthatmuch. It's especially problematic if and when small ICE cars are replaced with larger luxury EVs, as the difference goes to basically zero.Personally, I'm driving a 1996 state of art in low fuel consumption vehicle which in my use gets 5.5l/100km = 43mpg, and all EVs I have been looking at have significantly more weight and frontal area so keeping the old one alive by welding rusty spots to pass inspections every year while waiting for EVs to get even better than they already are seems environmentally a sane choice.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 07:45:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 03, 2023, 03:56:17 amWe have, that's the big satellite debacle. The temperature measurement satellites had a slight upward temperature drift in their measurement of temperature. The engineers calibrated the new sat correctly, sent it up, and there was a downward jump in temperature. So the climate scientists said, we cannot have that, corrected it so the data is continuous. And then the new sat started drifting. We are not talking about large drifts here, its in the order of 0.05K/decade, but it's enough to completely mess up any climate model. It's likely in the local two point calibration system, but they actually don't know what's causing it.You are engineers, so here is a challenge: Show me a circuit that would be able to do local measurements with 0.05K/decade noncertainty. Measure a PT1000 and guarantee that drift for 10 years.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 07:53:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 03, 2023, 03:56:17 amSatellites (using infrared thermal sensors - we know the transmissivity of the atmosphere), land temperature sensors, air temperature sensors, water buoy data.So yes, we can track it pretty well.https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 08:07:32 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 07:22:40 pmESG is something set up with the best of intenions, but is bad. Companies will just tick boxes, to gain higher ESG scores, but not have any real impact. They'll engauge in greenwashing and send their employees on stupid diversity courses, which many people here have complained about. It's something I steer clear of.Quote from: snarkysparky on August 03, 2023, 03:03:48 amI don't know anything about the person you mentioned in your original post or the organisation.The fact you're attacking him for his views is the worst thing.We don't know how many climate scientists disagree with the mainstream narrative on climate change. There might be many who have serious doubts, which they can back up with evidence, but won't do, through fear of losing their jobs.QuoteThat's seems like a sensible position to me.QuoteHow? So far, no on has come up with an easy answer.As I said before, I'm more worried about government over-reach at the moment, than climate change. I saw a lot of it during the pandemic. It was very frightening.

author: BBBbbb
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 09:37:58 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 03, 2023, 08:07:32 amYup ESG is a gamed metric used now basically for greenwashing. Recent article:https://archive.is/UF7dt

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 09:43:39 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 03, 2023, 05:25:37 amYes, thanks. Got stuck thinking 10 (g) rather than 10 in 1000 as a divisor.Another thing about that is it looks pretty big, but on a global scale it's not. It's hard for us to grasp scale and what it takes to make any sort of difference.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 09:52:54 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 03, 2023, 08:07:32 amIt's a corporate virtue signaling con that is already collapsing as was inevitable. It was a clever ploy to link environmentalism to the woke agenda though. If you didn't like ESG because of one of those things then it provided a very convenient mechanism to accuse you of either racism of anti-environmentalism.Yes, stay away.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 10:21:07 am
content: I have zero belief in any compensation or certification systems. Almost all are eventually proven as scams, those which aren't yet, will likely soon be, and those that are not outright scams have poor efficiency. It's just human nature. If you want to affect the outcome, you have to directly work towards it, not indirectly pay someone else to do that in a complex system with little transparency (or one where it's just moving from bin A to bin B).And think about it, reducing your winter-time room temperature by 0.5degC would do more to CO2 than all those dozens of certificates and compensation systems you participate in during the same time frame,even ifthey were legit and worked.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 11:05:38 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 03, 2023, 10:21:07 amI seem to recall one in Scotland where carbon certs were paying to not cut down a forest - er... there's just one problem with that - it was already protected by national legislation so it would have been illegal anyway.The only carbon offsetting worth anything is certified carbon removal - planting NEW trees, or using direct air capture. The cost of doing such though is so much higher than pretending to actually do it.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 11:37:08 am
content: the 70 or 100yr goal of communism is the deindustrialisation of the western countries.then have the useful idiots remain childless and strip men of their manhood.its all in the communist manifesto.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 11:43:07 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 03, 2023, 11:05:38 amEven then the question is, would those trees have been planted anyway? And is just someone making money planting more trees and cutting them (nothing wrong with that, normal forestry), i.e., normal relatively carbon-neutral business in disguise of something carbon-positive to suck public money.It's all about how webrandthings, not as much what they factually are; Finland is a perfect example, we have an excellent track record of relatively responsible forestry, we have most forest per capita in whole EU by a wide margin and this is not changing for worse at all. Basically unlike rest of the Europe, we have not cut down all of our forests starting in Middle ages because we see them as a valuable resource which we want to keep for unforeseeable future and not overuse. Actively planting new trees is natural part of that business, have been for more than half a century here.Yet Russian trolls coined a negatively loaded term for a forest where trees have been planted, atree field, and the political left spectrum here happily started using it against those who support use of forests and wood. Elsewhere in Europe, planting trees and making products out of wood is marketed as a good, environmentalist, woke-compatible thing, in Finland our leftist leaders, based on the Russian propaganda model, chose to brand the same thing as opposite, anti-climate action. It went so far as to accepting to pay 20 billion € sanctions to EU, while Sweden just simply opted out of that payment, but we did not want to.

author: Microdoser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 12:06:11 pm
content: As soon as money becomes embedded into the framework of dealing with any issue, the issue for some people becomes : "How can I extract as much money as possible from this issue?"This, of course, provides ammunition for people that do not agree with the issue as they can claim it is artificially created just for some people to make money. They can legitimately point to the people who do not care about the issue, and are trying to just make money, and say that what they are doing is what they are doing. They then go on to say that this completely taints the original issue and proves their case that it is artificially created. This is, of course, terrible logic as that claim does not follow from the facts they observe.This applies no matter what the issue is. It's happened with Climate change, BLM, and many other issues.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2023, 12:12:09 pm
content: Money can be ared flagbut presence of red flag is only a hint, not proof of anything, and some red flags are thus false. Surprisingly many otherwise sane people fail to see this. Besides, money is not a very good red flag because human nature tries to make money out of everything. This being said, it's still important to remember the "follow the money" principle.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 01:25:15 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 10:16:00 amScience failed during and "after" covid? Didn't we manage to come up with multiple vaccines in record time? Didn't we discuss and learn about virus infection in schools, at home, on the net, whatever, like we had never done before? How can science have failed when we exactly improved our knowledge about (and techniques to deal with) the issue at hand? I don't get it.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 01:32:17 am
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on August 04, 2023, 01:25:15 amProper real vaccines prevent transmission.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 05:20:11 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2023, 01:32:17 amAnd after proper real vaccines, we usually do not see peace-time record high increase in excess mortality, but the opposite. I had some hopes for the vaccine, too, and ended up taking two shots which I obviously regret - the product I got is nowofficiallybanned due to heart failures - but I wonder how anyone can act like this farce was anything else than utter disaster. I guess we can pretty easily see here the difference between scientifically oriented and religious people. In science, admitting failures and doing better next time is also a big thing. Only in religion is God perfect and never makes mistakes, such that even if God sometimes causes us misery, there must be reason for it and we must accept it and still praise the God.For me, it is obvious I will be much much more careful when trusting medical authorities in the future. Our kid gets all the classic jabs but none of the new/weird stuff, whatever they come up with. If that makes us anti vaxers or social outcasts, then be it.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:56:26 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2023, 01:32:17 amNot true. The influenza vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, yet is widely given to vulnerable people. The goal is to prevent severe disease and death. It's true there's some controversy about whether it's worthwhile, but that's another thing.The problem with the COVID-19 vaccines is many so-called liberal democracies made them mandatory, if one wanted to go to a public place, or work, even though they didn't prevent transmission. Even in the UK, the government mandated them for care home workers, when the R number for the current variant was 13 and the vaccine only reduced transmission by 30%. Fortunately it was scrapped, before it was pushed on to all NHS staff.Quote from: bsfeechannel on August 04, 2023, 01:25:15 amScience failled during and after the pandemic. The measures taken were not evidence based. There wasn't any evidence masks, or keeping 2m appart from one another, prevented transmission of respiratory viruses. No one proved closing schools and bussinesses wouldn't do more harm in the long run, than good. There wasn't any proof of a risk vs benefit for many taking the vaccine, especially those with natural immunity. At best it just delays reinfection for awhile, but the risk of getting sick from reinfection is tiny, quite possibly lower than that of the vaccine.Such authoritarian policies require a huge burden of proof, which didn't exist.Quote from: Siwastaja on August 04, 2023, 05:20:11 amWhich vaccine did you have?Some countries were more cautious than others. Many European countries banned Moderna in the under 40s, whist it was still pushed on everyone in Canada. AstraZeneca was ceased in the UK, but never banned and they didn't admit it wasn't safe.I got two doses of AstraZeneca, when I was 39, even though it wasn't recommened for the under 40s. I belived it to be slighly safer for me, as the data I had seen showed the risk of blood clots from AstraZeneca, was mostly in women and they wanted to give me Pfizer, which carried a risk of myocarditis, but that was mostly in men. Fortunately I didn't have any complications, but I don't know whether I made the right decision now. I rejected the booster, because it wasn't subject to the same level of testing and it was the Pfizer, which I hadn't had an didn't want to take the risk, when there was not solid data to back it up.Regarding excess deaths. There's still no definitive proof, they're linked to the vaccines. Some of them will be, others will be down to the virus weakening people and many will be due to the drastic policies put in place to deal with the pandemic.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 08:16:37 am
content: Not quite sure how this got to COVID, but the thing about the vaccines is that they prevent transmission by turning someone who'd have a fairly significant (but survivable) case into someone who has an asymptomatic or mild case. There is limited evidence for asymptomatic transmission of COVID (if you want to talk about bonkers policy, try testing asymptomatic people) and the more "severe" the case the more viral load shed, which is why COVID doctors were particularly at risk of dying despite being healthy people, lots of viral load overloading their immune system. If you do develop a serious case, vaccines won't stop you transmitting the virus, but by effectively reducing the number of serious cases, they do reduce transmission.And you can see this in the data for the UK and other European countries, when vaccines were rapidly rolled out, cases and deaths fell like a rock, and that remains to this day despite all socialisation rules being removed.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:12:25 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 08:16:37 amAre you serious and do you ever fact-check yourself? I mean, this is extremely easy thing to check. I recommend you do that now, just open up the statistics (worldometer, your government's own, whatever, they all show approximately the same).

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:19:38 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 04, 2023, 09:12:25 amThis is Finland for example, I marked approximately when majority of population got their 1st and 2nd jabs. Specifically the delay from 2nd jab to the death toll increase seems totally in line with mainstream scientific research, see for example Christian Holm Hansen et all, Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study.But I'm sure you prefer publications from political organizations and experts hired by governments instead of independent, peer-reviewed scientific research. The uneffectiveness of COVID 19 vaccines especially against the Omicron variant isn't even debated, questioning this and claiming they are effective for longer than 2-3 months is similar to claiming Earth is flat or there is no man-made climate change. Why this selective trust in science? Or you take the stance whichever allows more totalitarian practices, if yes, why?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:43:19 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on August 04, 2023, 09:12:25 amYes I'm absolutely serious There is no doubt that the vaccines have a significant reduction in mortality rate (the exception is that the AZ and J&J vaccines are no where near as effective, though they still conferred some benefit).This can be seen in UK data.Look at the deaths following the vaccination programme which reached everyone following June 2021. That's right when you'd expect another wave... yet it didn't come.https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation&areaName=EnglandVaccination data (bottom chart showing cumulative count):https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=Englandabout 50 million doses had been given by that point which was every vulnerable person having 1st + 2nd jab and many starting their 1st jab. From early 2022 onwards no COVID restrictions applied any more. The vaccine stopped the virus.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 11:32:16 am
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on August 04, 2023, 01:25:15 amAgreed. Science saved our asses big time (just like it did in the past by eradicating other highly infectious diseases like polio and measles). It is just that foreign entities saw a big opportunity to spread false information and did so. To the extend that many now distrust the very people that work hard to keep them safe.One of the primary failures is to selectively shop in research papers. Better follow the advice given by instutes that exist to supply governments with information.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 12:20:26 pm
content: QUOTE: Yes I'm absolutely serious There is no doubt that the vaccines have a significant reduction in mortality rate (the exception is that the AZ and J&J vaccines are no where near as effective, though they still conferred some benefit).You are making the assumption that the vaccines stopped the virus. This is an assumption based on observation of this pandemic.So why did the 1918 have only two deadly waves?There was no vaccine for that disease at that time at all. And no laboratory tests, really only physical examination of the ill and dead.Also please note that the COVID vaccine was only available after the second wave had pretty much ended.Here are two other charts showing that there was a third wave:https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=Englandhttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-deaths?time=2020-01-03..2022-10-02&country=~GBRIn the above chart, Please note that the red line is cases, deaths are green line. Lots of third wave cases not so many deaths.There is a lot of reasons thee data do not tell the entire story, one of the things would be the availability of tests to diagnose relatively minor cases were not as available in the earliest wave.We do not know anything about a third wave in the 1918 Flu pandemic, since we have no testing results and the third wave would not have caused a lot of deaths.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 12:31:17 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 04, 2023, 12:20:26 pmHow accurate is the data from the 1918 pandemic compared to what we have today? PCR testing was but a glimmer in the eye of epidemiologists.Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 04, 2023, 12:20:26 pmIndeed but this is my point about asymptomatic testing. Because after the 2nd wave and vaccines we had a lot more socialisation, lots of things reopened, there was more opportunity for the virus to spread. But the majority of the time it was spreading from vaccinated to vaccinated, or if it was spreading to an unvaccinated person, less virus was spreading each time. And those it did infect didn't get as sick, they didn't end up in hospital, they didn't die as often. This idea of viral load is one reason masks helped somewhat with the virus spread (though like lots of things in the pandemic, their effectiveness was exaggerated.)Another issue with looking at case numbers instead of deaths/hospitalisations is that case numbers aren't corrected to the proportion of those tested - the UK really ramped up testing once socialisation was allowed again with the expectation of having to lock down quickly if the virus got out of control (indeed that did happen in December 2021, which I think was a mistake, but that's politics!) Deaths and hospitalisations on the other hand don't require correction for somewhat obvious reasons (it's hard to ignore someone dying.)What we do know is even against Omicron the current generation mRNA vaccines reduceillness by about 65%and while they may not stop you getting sick they reduce the severity of sickness, which in my mind is a win... There is also a nice epidemiological benefit: we possibly pushed the SARS-CoV-2 virus to this evolutionary outcome. Since the vaccine trains the immune system against the spike protein, it was not as effective any more for SARS-CoV-2 to use that protein. The spike protein mutated and became less effective, reducing the severity of the virus. Note that Omicron only was spottedlate Nov 2021well after a majority of people had been vaccinated. While we will never know the true reason for an evolutionary benefit it's reasonable to surmise that vaccine evasion is a strong driver so this is a possible example of vaccines protecting even the unvaccinated.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 12:35:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 04, 2023, 11:32:16 amIn a way some of the institutions did fail. People realized that the WHO is politics first, that any science rom communist countries are subject to meddling from the governments. At the beginning the downplay of the events were exactly like the Chornobyl disaster, not giving clear info, not sharing the danger. Or the sputnik vaccine developed and then the lead scientist getting murdered by the state.An entire new generation have to realize how bad having dictatorships as neighbors is. And those dictatorships keep inventing and funding disinformation to undermine our trust.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 01:53:09 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2023, 01:32:17 amNo, that is not how vaccines work. Vaccines train your immune system to recorgnise a threat and deal with it properly. Reduced spreading of a disease is a secondary effect.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pm
content: As always on eevblog, we have a factual debate on an emotional subject, which is fought near-religiously, especially in Germany.I'm also an experimental physicist and natural-scientist. In physics, we have a clear view how to validate new theories.I recommend the old 1964 video from Feynman, On scientific methods:It's a three step process, in brief:1) Observe the phenomenon, i.e. make precise measurements on the observable parameters2) Guess a theory, best in form of closed equations, which combines the parameters from 1), and try to identify possible correlations amongst them.As Weather and Climate are like Thermodynamics non-deterministic, you have to use statistical methods and numerical simulation instead.Both methods have to describe exactly the known, historic data. The theory will allow extrapolation in e.g. geometrical or timely manner.Usually there are several different theories, either contradicting each other (which is good), or giving different predictions.3) The theories/simulations have to be validated, again by experimental methods, by checking their predictionsThe theories, which fail versus experiment, are definitely false.Those which agree with experiment are "not wrong" only.Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.To my knowledge, there do not exist (yet) accelerated life methods or short termed monitoring which would correlate well with the Climate models.The Climate simulations probably use strong averaging statistics with a time-constant of about 30 years.The mean global temperature trend itself is such a prediction which arises from a strong averaging statistics.Therefore, they can't make any prediction about Weather events, or similar events on a short termed basis any more. They only provide long termed trends.That's similar to the Allan Deviation (statistics) for clocks.. you can't correlate short term noise with long term stability, e.g. on Cs clocks vs. MASER clocks, also due to different time constants.The IPCC AR6 results therefore deliver ideas about long term evolution of temperature, glacier melting, sea level rise, but barely any advice, how weather events will develop. There's a weak indication that Strong Rain events might happen more often.And I'm not sure, whether Geologists or Biologists are able to identify early signs of changes.One of my former school mates is a prof for Geology, and works on Climate Change by using satellite measurements. I have to ask him.This obvious gap in perception is politically used in Germany and EU to justify painful changes of our economy and Power supply with recent catastrophic events like flooding of a narrow valley and those many forest fire events in Southern Europe and in Germany.But there exists no real scientific correlation, only religious like apocalypse visions. People are gluing themselves to the soil for that reason.The root cause of the flooding is: long time settling in a danger zone, that's historically proven. Identical floods occurred in 1808 and 1910.Wild fires are near 100% caused by arson.In Engineering (my company) we use e.g. "A3 problem solving" for investigation on the REAL root causes and problem management, mostly (99%) by risk mitigation. In rare cases only, the problem itself can be solved. That's my daily experience as well, as I'm dealing with hundreds of terminations and changes on components (PCN / PTN) every year. You always have to find work arounds like re-engineering or long term storage, but only rarely you are able to convince the supplier to withdraw the PCN or PTN.Probably the Global Warming can not be stopped (so fast), so we have to mitigate the consequences.It would be better, if experience from "complete" fields of science AND the experience of engineers-in-industry would be consulted to make problem and risk analysis, technology assessments on these more technical oriented subjects.Here in Germany we have the most dumb Climate politics and Energy change.The politics and so called "experts" cut down our working, reliable energy system, formerly based on nuclear power and fossile energy, before the "renewable" energies can safely and completely take over. There are still several important technologies for energy buffering missing, do not have the necessary maturity level, or are too expensive, like battery storage or hydrogen conversion.Me and my colleagues in Automotive Electronics company developed many new automotive compliant components and technologies, like SMD, Blue LED, LCDs, 25 years ago.This now allows to terminate old analog instruments with dials, pointers, stepper motors, which were produced up to now, for over 40 years.The new devices are already working and running in mass production for many years.That's the way to bring innovations into life, but definitely not the other (German) way round.FrankPS: Phrases like "denial" ,"believing", "disbelieving", ""blame" "original sin" are often used in the daily discussion about Climate and COVID alike on TV, journals, by environmental activists and medical "scientists".Those terms are all originating from the religions.I have big problems with these terms, as I guess i never simply "believed" in something, but I always wanted to know how technical things worked in its core.I always was questing for the root cause, and disassembled each and every device I could access.What could not be proven, is not existing.That's the materialistic view of a typical scientist.So I have my big doubts on politics, religion, fanatic, any doctrine, medical "science", latter from personal experience.Peter Higgs suggested "his" particle in 1964, and the whole physical community was fully convinced of his theory over all the years.But only about 50 years later in 2012, the experimental proof was achieved with 5-sigma uncertainty @ CERN.Only then he was granted the Nobel Prize. That's how Physics / Science works.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 03:08:45 pm
content: I am working my way through this thread. This is one of those topics that is hard to discuss as there are lunatics at each end making it hard to have conversations about things without it turning into a shouting match.I am curious about some of the headline temperatures for example recent UK hotspots have not been the traditional places where the weather was recorded its been some random Airport in the UK. Where before the highest temp recorded etc was from a select few places (37 ish). I suspect this was because of the way weather data was recorded, it had to be a trustworthy person and location.Have the historical temperatures been correct to follow the new definitions of the SI units?With the historical data, how much can we trust its accuracy? Was there any traceability or testing done on the thermometers, how accurately was the reading taken and did they actually do it or was it another one of those jobs to be done that sometimes people just made up.Modern methods of measurement are digitally done and recorded every second/30 seconds therefore able to catch the peaks better than the old glass thermometer.How has the microclimate near the recording stations changed over the years? Lots more buildings, more tarmac, fewer trees and intensive farming all have effects.There are many other things that we just put trust into the scientists to do their job well but not all do. I really dislike the terminology that keeps getting banded about with emergency/crisis as it doesn't help the conversation. I remember a few years back a reporter visited a group of protesters and asked them about the information behind what was written on the banners and on the leaflets they handed out, very few had any knowledge of the information but they were willing to hand out leaflets and shout at people.I get tired of it all, the BBC News is pushing out a story about climate this and that every few days and eventually I know I will just switch off from it all. I have never flown in an aeroplane, I holiday near home, I try to do my part to avoid making a massive dent in the environment...meanwhile, the wealthy people of the world do WTF they want as they can afford to.btw the UK Weather people have got temperature records going back some 170 years and the data is there to look at if you want athttps://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-dataNot all but enough for me to hold most of them to account for it.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 03:54:47 pm
content: Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pmDoesn't work with Y2K problems, which covid was. Scientists could figure out something and make a prediction, and then because people are dying (and/or potentially dying) those predictions are used to mitigate the effects. So the predictions turn on to be wrongbecause they've been used to manipulate the resultsand the scientists (and their models) get poo-poo'd.

author: bsfeechannel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 03:57:52 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 04, 2023, 07:56:26 amSo people expected a miracle but instead what came out of the lab were advancements, setbacks, hunches, guesses, theories but an overall improved understanding of the pandemic, how these viruses spread, infect, debilitate and kill, uh you know, science as usual.QuotePeople confusing science with politics is an interesting subject of study by science.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 04:09:04 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 03, 2023, 09:52:54 amFurthermore, ESG scoring used as a way to divert attention while nefarious work remains under way.In the UK, it's turned out that the even financial regulator has been pushing ESG scoring onto the banks. This is in an effort for them to try to show banks have gained some kind of moral legitimacy after the CDO and LIBOR scams, numerous money laundering fines, failing to pass on interest rate rises to savers, and more recently the various debanking scandals.Using subject access requests, it transpires that at least one bank that we know of so far has been using its ESG dogma to debank customers who've done noting illegal, but because they don't hold the same ESG values that the banks might profess to hold.Until very recently, I was unaware of B Corp, which is an ESG scoring outfit. It's just another pay-per-view vanity business award scam: to become "certified" companies have to tick various boxes. Note that B Corp is a supplier. They are not a stockholder, customer or an employee, yet they are dictating how a company does business in return for some box ticking.Meanwhile, the dirty laundry is still dirty.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 04:15:16 pm
content: Quote from: bsfeechannel on August 04, 2023, 03:57:52 pmJeepers (not the actual word I used). This crap again. Something happened that was expected but due to lots of unknowns, it's almost impossible to define a clear system to protect everyone. Then when the turd hit the fan the ones in charge suddenly had people asking them WTF do we do. They in turn looked at the clever people and said what can I tell them otherwise the press will murder me and the public will hate me forever. So the clever people came up with basic simple things that might reduce a repeat of historic events that have happened before all without having a full understanding of the bad thing that was happening. These clever people are used to spending months/years studying stuff and aren't used to giving quick answers with limited data. I often what would have happened if high up did nothing and the world just carried on like normal, who would be held to blame for all the excess deaths.What I want to know from the pandemic is what steps are being taken to prevent another one, I really am not looking forward to another one of these because the next one might kill me.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 06:41:38 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 09:43:19 amThe data you've posted doesn't prove the vaccines stopped transmission, only made the disease less severe, by reducing deaths, but even then there are confounding factors.The death rate was high during the first two waves, the original variant and alpha. Delta occurred in summer, when transmission of respiratory viruses is lower anyway, then Omicron came along, which still spread irrespective of the vaccines, but wasn't anywhere near as pathogenic, as it tended to cause more upper airway infection, rather than getting into the lungs, which was probably also why it spread more easily.Quote from: PlainName on August 04, 2023, 03:54:47 pmThat's incorrect because not all countries did the same. Some didn't do much to limit the spread, yet didn't do as badly as some of those who did.Quote from: mendip_discovery on August 04, 2023, 04:15:16 pmThe problem is there were a lot of clever people, with different ideas of what to do. Some thought restricting all social contact to a minimum was the correct way to go about it. Other clever people were worried that social isolation, the cancellation of medical appointments, business and school closures and the resulting economic downturn would cost more lives, than they would save. Many governments only listened to those who were in support of lockdowns and actively censored those who didn't.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 04, 2023, 01:32:17 amSome do, some don't. It depends how transmission occurs for the particular disease. For many respiratory diseases spreading occurs mostly from the sinus tracts, outside the body's main barrier. Natural infection tends to build immunity separately on both sides of that barrier. Injecting things directly into the body doesn't trigger training of the immune system in the sinuses, outside the barrier. So, it won't train your system to reduce transmission. This is a well known issue with things like flu vaccines. It should have been known to any expert pontificating on how a COVID vaccine would stop transmission, which it was unlikely to do from day one, and less and less likely as the disease was understood. They specifically did NO testing for transmission prevention during the approval of the mRNA vaccines, even though this was the stated high priority reason for developing them. It was a bait and switch.Its worth noting that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines in any traditional sense. The mRNA causes your body to produce the actual vaccine, which the immune system then trains on. The amount of vaccine your body actually produces is very poorly controlled.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:33:41 pm
content: Quote from: mendip_discovery on August 04, 2023, 04:15:16 pmNothing and don't worry. History has shown these world scale pandemic events repeat every 100 years. Or 3 generations.And this also circles back to the topic: nowadays almost every extreme weather event is chalked up to climate change while extreme weather has existed longer than people can record such events. We have to be really carefull not to be talked into some kind of doomsday that will happen next week.For this reason the Netherlands specifies protection against extreme weather / water levels as (statistically) once in several thousand year events.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:46:34 pm
content: coppice is correct: MRNA vaccines are different, it is true that they might cause one person to make more antigen than another person. It is also noteworthy that there are no published standards of the concentrations of various agents in the vaccine. At least I have not been able to find any.Some folks think that the concentration of the active agents varied greatly with some batches being nearly zero.Every other vaccine has some standardization.Some vaccines do give immunity to infection and thus there is no transmission. Other vaccines give protective effect to the infection. This will not prevent transmission. There were some vaccines that actually accentuated the disease and made more people die.We were told repeatedly that the COVID vaccine would stop transmission of the disease. This was and is an obvious lie and brings into question anything that the medical government complex tells us.Everything after a lie becomes a "coverup" even if it is a true statement. It is almost impossible to regain trust after such a claim.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:46:47 pm
content: QuoteHow do you determine that a couple, or three, instances of a thousand year event in reasonably close succession hasn't turned it into a 500 year event (or worse)? Or has? Could just be a 10K-year event that triggered it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:54:29 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 04, 2023, 07:46:34 pmNo, you misunderstood. Vaccinated people get less sick, produce less 'carriers' and in this way the transmission is reduced (which in the end stops spreading Covid).

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 07:56:51 pm
content: No, I did not "misunderstand" that's what they said.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 08:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 04, 2023, 06:41:38 pmTo be clear, I mean slight hyperbole with the phrase "the vaccine stopped the virus", but appreciate that my tone is hard to convey by text. It reduced transmission, by quite a significant amount. And I believe most healthcare professionals had a similar opinion. It's a bit like lockdowns didn't stop transmission but they sure did reduce it.There are published studies, like the one I linked, showing around a 65% reduction in disease severity with Omicron. The Omicron mutation likely came aboutin part due to vaccine pressure. We can say it's partially fortunate that the virus mutated into a less serious variant but by inhibiting its main entry into cells we strongly pushed the selection pressure in this direction.Side note - It is debatable whether it was justifiable to vaccinate all age groups. However, given the early information available, it was probably the right choice. Now what we know is that the vaccines don't directly prevent transmission and only slightly reduce severity in mild/asymptomatic cases (with asymptomatic transmission being widely disputed), itprobablyswings the other way.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:05:20 pm
content: How to stop climate change?On behalf of the nations who are about to be drowned under anapocalyptic tsunami of boiling sea water, we demand the world's leaders meet in a luxury five star resort. Where, they spend two intensive weeks figuring our which luxury five star resort they are going to visit next. This event must be held every year and should be run under the auspice of the United Nations. And even when climate change is defeated, they must continue to meet, just in case it comes back again.Beating the ass of climate change is a piece of piss. No need for stopping oil, deep coal mining or gas fracking, instead we appoint an entourage of bureaucrats to piss our money into the ocean, so they can stop sea level rise.Next port of call on the floating gravy boat of wealth, privilege and self-entitlement, Dubai and the hyper rich oil states of the UAE.It's planet A for you,One Worldfor them :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference+ Always thoroughlygreenwashyour hands before handling climate change funding.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:16:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 04, 2023, 07:56:51 pmAnd what 'they' said is true but not in the way you understood it.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:24:35 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 04, 2023, 09:05:20 pmYou can't !All we can do is properly determine how much man might have an impact on it with robust science that includes any/all factors that might impact it.Like others, I'm unconvinced we have a problem the earth itself can't sort out.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:26:48 pm
content: Yes, the oceans are boiling. Maybe we can cook some pasta.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 09:44:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on August 04, 2023, 07:54:29 pmThis only works for a sterilising vaccine. We don't have those for COVID, or for most of the other diseases which transmit from the sinus cavity. There is no evidence of a measurable reduction of transmission with the weakly effective COVID vaccines.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 10:02:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 04, 2023, 09:44:05 pmI don't know why so many people misunderstand the concept.Yes, having a vaccine for COVID does not appear to reduce transmissibility of the virus directly when sick.However if the vaccine means you get less sick and therefore produce less viral load,you will transmit the virus less, when you look across a whole population. And there is ample evidence for this - both at the population level and in numerous studies on the various vaccines.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 10:55:14 pm
content: Ahh the Nobel Diseasehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_diseasestrikes again. I'm still unsure how much of it is success leading to arrogance, or just age - generally as people get older they accumulate memories of all the times they were right, but forget how often they were wrong so we all get quite stubborn in our old age, in the face of uncomfortable facts .

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 11:06:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 10:02:49 pmWith COVID, as with many respiratory diseases, you shed from your sinuses. The viral load in your body is irrelevant. The viral load in your nose, and out of reach of the immunity a COVID vaccine can infer, is where the transmission comes from. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 04, 2023, 11:06:23 pmIt's really just logic. The less sick you are, the less you cough, the less you sneeze, the less likely you are to have any symptoms at all. In the initial studies of the Pfizer vaccine, around 70% of people infected experienced no symptoms at all. Since asymptomatic spread of COVID is close to being a myth (there is some risk but it's very mild) you can infer the reduction in risk just from a reduction in symptoms. Viral spread isn't binary too - yes, you can be infected by a few virons, but the more viral load you receive in any given period of time, the more likely you are to experience serious side effects. Remember the otherwise healthy Chinese doctor,Li Wenliang, who died of COVID trying to break the news of this novel virus? He and many other healthcare workers suffered the consequences of a lack of appropriate PPE and protocol, they'd normally survive if they had only been exposed to a small dose of the virus but frequent and significant exposure killed them.

author: Buriedcode
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 11:13:37 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 04, 2023, 11:06:23 pmMaking mask wearing all the more important.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2023, 11:29:43 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 onTodayat 10:02:49 pm>Quote from: coppice onTodayat 09:44:05 pm>Quote from: nctnico onTodayat 07:54:29 pm>Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz onTodayat 07:46:34 pmNo, you misunderstood. Vaccinated people get less sick, produce less 'carriers' and in this way the transmission is reduced (which in the end stops spreading Covid).This only works for a sterilising vaccine. We don't have those for COVID, or for most of the other diseases which transmit from the sinus cavity. There is no evidence of a measurable reduction of transmission with the weakly effective COVID vaccines.I don't know why so many people misunderstand the concept.Yes, having a vaccine for COVID does not appear to reduce transmissibility of the virus directly when sick.However if the vaccine means you get less sick and therefore produce less viral load,you will transmit the virus less, when you look across a whole population. And there is ample evidence for this - both at the population level and in numerous studies on the various vaccines.NO.Some viruses do exhibit this wave phenom. There are explanations, which you may or may not agree with but the viruses do exhibit this behaviour. This happens without vaccines.https://health-desk.org/articles/what-are-first-second-and-third-waves-of-infectionsYes there are "sterilizing vaccines" which can stop transmission. COVID Vaccine is not one of them.If the vaccine curtails the illness associated with the disease, the person infected is unaware they are sick and is more likely to go out and spread it. There is no evidence that it decreases viral load,If you have a paper on this, a legitimate one, I would like to see it. Viral load in secretions only has to be high enough to transmit. more is NOT NECESSARILY more infectious. I have not seen any studies on the load necessary to be legitimately infectious.To return to the CLIMATE CHANGE issue, we were supposed to freeze to death according to experts in the 1970s. The sea level was supposed to drown Manhattan years ago. It is hard to take seriously people who are consistently wrong.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:09:01 am
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 04, 2023, 11:29:43 pmBecause:a) Our government leaders specifically told us this in no uncertain terms.b) Our governments implemented mandates for government workers based on this supposed fact.c) Companies imposed their own mandates with the legal backing of our governments based on this supposed fact.It was all bullshit. Argue all you want in theory and individual cases, but on the whole it didn't work, this is now admitted by practically all involved. They got it completely wrong. Don't be surprised when now people don't trust the government or our scientifical bodies again.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 am
content: Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 04, 2023, 02:44:03 pmI suspect it will never be a complete science. It's just such a complex dynamic system, and our ability to accurately measure stuff on a global scale is limited.Even in the 30, 50, 100 years time, the "proof" may not be available. The result mightmatcha prediction, but having absolute proof your model was right will still be elusive.They already have not had the best track record in this regard.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 amCan you name ONE complete science, according to your definition?If incomplete then there is no point ?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:43:51 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 amThe ones that turn into practical engineering, you know, like electronics. Stuff that we've used and reproduce every day for centuries.You can't compare that with climate science models. You come up with a model, apply it tomassively complicated global system we don't fully understand, wait 30 years and then the temperature went in the direction you expected. Hardly proof positive of anything, other than correlation.And that's even factoring in how many times the models have failed before. Heck, in the 1970's the climate science said we were headed for another ice age!Rinse and repeat. There are memes going around that show how many times the climate science and predictions have been dead wrong over the decades.They even trotted out Spock himself to tell us all about it:Oh, but it's different this time, right?Sure, maybe, but maybe not. My point is that while we know a lot more about this complicated system than we did then, it's still vastly far from knowing everything. If you think we know it all then that's just sheer hubris.And then factor in the extremefearand andcontrolmany people, governments, and organisations want to exert on us over climate change, you should be skeptical of alarmist claim on that human nature aspect alone.Like I said, with covid, BLM/Woke etc, there are always people looking to take control and advantage by way of fear.Look, no sensible scientific person is going to doubt that C02 is a greenhouse gas and can potentially have an impact in warming the planet. But to upheave society in one gigantic bet that's the prime moveandthe thing that will stop it does not pass the sniff test. It does however conveniently match the fear and control boogieman test.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:55:08 am
content: (Shrug) If you demand absolute certainty in life, you don't want science, you want religion.That ice-age schtick never had any real support, which is why it was abandoned. Meanwhile the notion of heat retention due to CO2 and other gases goes back to Arrhenius. Everything you need to know about the greenhouse effect you (should have) learned in high school chemistry.I don't have any particular opinions on climate science and I don't trust computer models any more than any other intelligent, technically-literate person should. I also don't agree that we're facing any sort of doomsday scenario due to warming. We adapt, that's what humans do. No animal anywhere has ever been better at adapting to a changing environment.But the general concept of accelerated warming due to GHG emissions seems hard to refute. You can't refute it by saying "B...b...b...but they were wrongbefore!," that much IS certain.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 07:02:26 am
content: Quote from: KE5FX on August 05, 2023, 06:55:08 amExactly.QuoteThe correlation is there, for sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only driver. And it also doesn't mean it's the only way to drive it back down.There is every chance that we stop all C02 tomorrow and we still don't stop it.Sure, reduce C02, very sensible thing to do. But to upheave society over CO2 alone, which includes, let's be frank about it, the potential death of countless millions in developing nations, seems absurd.You said it yourself, we are very good at adapting, it's what we do. So let's reduce CO2 the best we can without screwing people over, and plan to adapt.My only objection to the current climate science is thepoltics of fearassociated with it. Try to install fear in me and you can bugger right off.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 07:32:43 am
content: This whole discussion went full-scale being a new religion. Get your head being cut off if you dare to not follow this new religion.I still stick to the "treat your environment nicely", that's good enough. Nature will adapt, humans will have to adapt as well (and did so since forever, as there is always a change in environmental conditions).After all, the increasing population is probably the largest issue, which needs to be solved by religious and political leaders. Since the worlds largest religions still require folks to "breed like rabbits", I'm certain, banning wood ovens in Germany *will* save the world

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 07:53:32 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 10:02:49 pmLikely it is due to the spread of mis-information. Scientifically you can say the vaccines don't stop spreading the virus. This makes some people jump to the conclusion (or just parrotting) that the vaccines are useless. But if vaccines are useless, then we would still have problems with polio and measles which spread the same way as Covid does. But we don't because a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. And this herd immunity needs to be maintained.A long time ago I worked for a research institute. One of the first things new employees learned was to be really carefull with how a research question can be used towards steering a wanted outcome. But this steering can not always be fully avoided because in the end the customer needs to get what they ask & pay for. All in all you have to be really carefull with citing individual papers expecially when the initial research question isn't clear from the paper itself. It is very easy to pull a research paper out of context especially if the subject is on a complex matter.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 08:16:45 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 06:43:51 amYeah that.Your emphasis removed mine added.The climate of Fear.We have been fed a diet to expect weather extremes based on Golbull warming and 2 storms in NZ early this year were attributed to Globull warming and by a NZ Gubbermint dept NIWA called it the worst storm NZ had ever seen......BS I thought and others did too including our premier investigative journalist Ian Wishart, a national treasure.This Gubbermint dept NIWA and their some 30 odd years of existence claims their core values are:NIWA’S purpose is to enhance the economic value and sustainable management of New Zealand’s aquatic resources and environments, to provide understanding of climate and the atmosphere and increase resilience to weather and climate hazards to improve safety and wellbeing of New Zealanders.One would imagine they know what they are on about however recently Ian Wishart proved they don't have a clue and only exist to push an agenda.He conducted 2 weeks of detailed private research of historical NZ weather events to satisfy us that NIWA's claims were false.....a Gubbermint institution funded by taxpayers !When it was disclosed the worst storm NZ had seen didn't even make the top 10 of privately researched publically available historical records, NIWA backpedalled to claim instead it was the wettest, again proven to be BS after a further weeks research by aprivateindividual !So much for publicly funded Gubbermint organizations to provide the real facts on weather....their core business !Attached are the 2 documents prepared on NZ historical weather research by Ian Wishart and while they might be a tedious read, they are the facts and as such are sometimes tough going. Methodology is described as are sources.Of interest is the 1938 storm seriously affecting the Esk Valley near Napier, the same area badly damaged in the 2023 storm where if reading the 1938 paper clipping outlining the damage one can be forgiven for thinking they had the dates incorrect....didn't the exact same damage occur in 2023, nearly 90 years later !

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 08:25:11 am
content: The real problem is that the scientific community didn't stand up as a whole, didn't post on every social platform, or bombard every newsagency with the message: politics got it wrong this is not how science works. This is not what we are saying.In doing so they made themselves absolutely unbelievable. In the Netherlands there was an evening clock between 21.00 and 04.30. Nobody from the scientific community said, hey, a virus cannot watch clocks. Why these strange cutoff times? It was (immediately) clear from the hospital admission data that the rule had no effect, but still, politics endured this rule for three months. The scientific community didn't stand up, and didn't go to court to change this.So why should we trust them?There is now some concern about ocean warmth. It is presented as a part of climate change.Again the scientific community as a whole isn't going to the press every day stating: "it might come from the regulations imposed in 2020 by the United Nations’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) to have cut ships’ sulfur pollution by more than 80%.Sure, we have cleaner air, but also less clouds and more warmth.As long as nations are not able to maintain a net zero balance on their budgets, I think we all know they won't be able to achieve net zero energy goals.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 08:50:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 12:16:50 amNot just dynamic, both climate and weather are chaotic systems.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:03:15 am
content: QuoteOne of the problems with covid arguments is that solutions must be either 100% effective or 0%, but in reality being just 20% would be an improvement. It just means the risk is different, and if you can reduce risk then why not? Do you stop going shopping at all, or do you not give a toss and live in the supermarket? Surely minimising how often you go is a better solution that either extreme.QuoteIt would take at least 2 weeks for any effect to begin to show, so perhaps you might want to define 'immediately' so it's a bit more believable.

author: welterde
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:19:43 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 06:43:51 amScience progresses one mistake at a time.But to say that the scientific consensus back in the 1970s was there would be global cooling is just not true:literature review article.There were more papers published about neutral temperatures or warming than cooling.You have to keep in mind that the media and science are two separate things and science reporting gets things wrong all the time.Maybe you also remember the leaked internal studies from ExxonMobil from the 1970/1980s:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063, which came to the same conclusion about warming, but were not published for obvious reason. And at least their predictions are not too far off from what we see today.At this point it is hard to deny that the global temperatures are rising:https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/2295/2023/essd-15-2295-2023.pdf(for more up-to-date values:https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/).This is not only seen in the observed temperature, but also from the effective radiative forcing.All the different forcings are being investigated (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf), so that we are just missing some large forcing that can explain the temperature rise some other way is rather unlikely at this point.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:32:31 am
content: In the west we have a press that is almost hard coded into reporting weather events as evidential proof of, insert quote, "man made climate change". Heatwaves in South East Asia and the Mediterranean, cold weather across Canada, dust storms in Australia, high winds in India and persistent rain in Britain. All evidence that means, insert quote, "we need to cut carbon emissions before it is too late."It is this 'opinion management' which (mis)leads otherwise sane and rational people to demand our leaders act now. And they will. By manufacturing policy documents, fact finding in the Maldives and inventing bullshit taxes. And the people with the placards blocking our streets will, insert quote, "be worried this is too little too late." And demand, insert quote, "our politicians go a lot further before it istoo late."You might note that climate protesters never protest outside the Chinese or Russian embassies. Foĺlow the money? Just saying as it seems that once principled green groups and human rights organisations have been hijacked by the climate change agendaists.Me? Climate change denier no. I've been an amateur meteorologist since before school age. Sceptical of climate science influenced by anti Western left wing agenda politics, you bet.The solution to climate change, habitat protection and species endangerment is responsinle planning andgood engineering. But all we have right now is a puppet media, screaming children and bad politicians cashing in on the hysteria.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:46:50 am
content: Meanwhile, the factual global sea temperature average is exceeding records by a significant margin for this time of year and the El Niño event is barely even be starting before the end of the year. Next year could be a fun one...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537Deniers can argue all they like against climate change, but somebody had better bloody well fix it.Edit: From the BBC report:

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:47:20 am
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 05, 2023, 09:32:31 amYet from the Climate of Fear document I linked above:.........That creates an overwhelming impression that the weather is getting more extreme – an impression that you will shortly see may not only be wrong, but the reverse:in New Zealand, at least, there’s evidence that we suffered more so-called 1-in-100 year storms/floods in the 1800s (when CO2 was only around 285ppm) than now (413ppm).While it is just one study it still indicates proper analysis of historical weather analysis can prove storms were more common (here in NZ) when CO2 levels were half of what they are now.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:55:40 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 09:03:15 amFor ordinary measures I agree. But this measure had no legal basis. In the Netherlands a special (temporary) law had to be created.In fact we even had two different law adaptions.Thescience community did not stand up, a group of civilians did stand up (and they got the misnomer conspiracy people).A judge (imho rightly) declared the measure unlawful because it was done in a too hasty way and had a too great impact on the citizens.Only in an acute emergency situation such an emergency measure for a very short time can be executed.The state made an appeal the same day after the judge ruled and, without any proof had the statement it was necessary.If you grant the political system to add exceptions to rights, what you will get is that they will create exceptions.Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 09:03:15 amNope in Amsterdam there was a test with cameras in order to see how busy the streets were. And guess what: no real difference.Together with the evening clock a whole range of other measures were taken. You cannot attribute the effect only to this very harsh measure.In the Netherlands, we had a red team and a the so-called OMT (the official body to give advice to the government) both had their doubts before introducing the measure and they are proved to be right.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 10:37:25 am
content: And where are the scientist speaking up now we haveconcrete data of not warming up/decrease of ice?When is the science community standing up because we havedata that prove that solar panels are increasing CO2 levels?Where is the scientific community stating to all government officials:it is not true that the world is on fire.Why aren't universities going to the press every day stating: stop the fear-mongering, readthis lancelet article.?Why are the words from critical scientists (e.g. Freeman Dyson: (regarding IPCC climate models)I just think they don't understand the climate their models are full of fudge factors) not on an equal par in the climate discussions?Why is the scientific community not explaining to the public that the colouring of the images like those below is based on different temperatures (2019 one day, 2009 average for the upcoming three days)?Why don't they reduce the fear-mongering?Answer: they get money out of it.(and in case you can understand German, the weather news from 2009 ishereit is colored orange.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:28:30 am
content: Quote from: nctnico onTodayat 07:53:32 am>Quote from: tom66 onYesterdayat 10:02:49 pm>Quote from: coppice onYesterdayat 09:44:05 pm>Quote from: nctnico onYesterdayat 07:54:29 pm>Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz onYesterdayat 07:46:34 pmNo, you misunderstood. Vaccinated people get less sick, produce less 'carriers' and in this way the transmission is reduced (which in the end stops spreading Covid).This only works for a sterilising vaccine. We don't have those for COVID, or for most of the other diseases which transmit from the sinus cavity. There is no evidence of a measurable reduction of transmission with the weakly effective COVID vaccines.I don't know why so many people misunderstand the concept.Likely it is due to the spread of mis-information. Scientifically you can say the vaccines don't stop spreading the virus. This makes some people jump to the conclusion (or just parrotting) that the vaccines are useless. But if vaccines are useless, then we would still have problems with polio and measles which spread the same way as Covid does. But we don't because a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. And this herd immunity needs to be maintained.How about the recent wave of Polio in Africa, the one that immunization was supposed to quell? The one that is traced to the vaccine itself??? The Oral Polio Vaccine was stopped in most countries because of this risk, which we have known about for at least 50 years.https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/sep/02/vaccine-derived-polio-spreads-in-africa-after-defeat-of-wild-virusVaccines are not without risks, now we have an outcome that is potentially worse than the initial disease.Polio is transmitted orally- fecal route. Measles is transmitted thru respiratory secretions.COVID is probably transmitted thru respiratory secretions although fecal route is also possible. This may be important.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-020-0295-7It may also give us a new use for those protective surgical masks:Please get your transmission line theory in order.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:36:35 am
content: Damn, no wonder those masks are disposable! For those discussing covid, the virus was already in circulation in Europe by November 2019. It was just called a 'winter respiratory virus'. And as such, no balls were dropped.Quote from: tautech on August 05, 2023, 09:47:20 amI was told by a Kiwi that the Scotts settled in Dunedin because it always rains and the sun never shines. It reminded them of home.Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get. UK weather today: A 'named' storm brings heavy precipitation and gales to the south. So it is time to insert another media quote. “A hotter world means extreme weather events will become more common place.” Everyone else here calls it a typical sh1t English summer. Like those in Dunedin? At least the bad weather will keep the climate protesters indoors.Some other quotes for insertion are these gems: "Climate scientists predict global temperatures will rise to levels not seen since the Roman period." Another, "Greenland temperatures have not been this high since the Viking settlements." I am not even going to ask you to join those dots because you are smart guys and here on the EEVBlog. Ordinary people though, take what ever the media spoon is feeding to them. So if it sounds catastrophic, it must be.On the subject of climate data, below (and freakishly big) is a map of global temperatures from 1850 thru 2017, expressed as, “Warming stripes”. Note the red zone to the right, which demonstrates the rise in global temperatures. So the middle and left? Blue means cooler? Take a look at the other stripe series on the bloghttps://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2018/warming-stripes/I wonder what the public’s perception of these maps would be if we used the astrophysics colour convention whereby blue was hot and red was cool?Insert quote again, “the people are demanding climate action.”Are we? New word for 2023 and the Trump campaign :GreenlashQuote

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:37:03 am
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 05, 2023, 11:28:30 amNope, the scientific community let politics get away with this statement. In the Netherlands politicians stated clearly :take the vaccine it will stop the spread.The scientific institute didn't counteract this. And by not counteracting, the people distrust both politicians and scientists. And they have all the right to do so.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:44:57 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 05, 2023, 03:06:46 amWell, Physics is strictly based on this concept of proof, so it's such a "complete" science.We had several bad examples like Cold Fusion by Fleischman and Pons, and in Germany the "Physics Faker" Jan Hendrik Schön,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal,which led to a stricter Peer Review process.Peer Review I should add to my description of "Scientific Methods", and which is still lacking to the actual discussion about possible new room temperature superconductors.Physics anyhow, does never raise the claim to find the absolute truth. The confirmed results give the best description of phenomena's at a given time, but can always be improved, complemented or even falsified at a later point in time.I agree to Dave that Climate Research might face problems to really confirm their predictions, due to very vague measurements or unstable simulation models, also due to the complexity and chaotic behavior.For me, that whole IPCC science community is non-transparent, and their simulations are very difficult to reproduce.That's in big contrast to the usual behavior of the physics community. For example, when the New Kilogram was defined, you could openly follow the discussion and the experiments, how and when they made their decisive measurements on the Kibble balance versus the Avogadro experiment (Silicon sphere)- They also explained to the public, how they came to their conclusions.Please, download the latest full AR6 report:https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdfTry to follow all their simulations, measurements, and so forth, which decide over the ww. strategy how to combat the global warming.You can decide for a strict CO2budget, i.e. absolutely no more fossile burning any more, or you can take into consideration, that 50% of the emissions are absorbed by the oceans and by rising land vegetation, which would give much more time for changes.The IPCC decided that the 2nd option is not feasible due to a probable depletion of this effect.I'm following a Climate lecture series of a German physics professor, who recently notified, that this IPCC decision is based on a single, very nebulous paper, which is also not well cited in this report.As this is only a singular indication, that the IPCC report might not be well founded, I want to understand more about that whole scientific construct.So I will stay skeptical further on, but will not negate the whole Climate Change discussion, as I'm convinced since 1978, that it's one severe problem, but beneath many others, over-population being the worst.On the UN charter for sustainability, it's also one item amongst 16 others:https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/Frank

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:52:41 am
content: RAPo:PLEASE QUOTE CORRECTLYThat was not me saying this particular quoteIt was me Quoting tom66

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:01:31 pm
content: Sorry,but the presentation really made it look like the red text is yours.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:17:40 pm
content: I will have to be more careful also, Probably use italics for quotes, or something like thatThis thread is getting a bit complicated and quite active.And I agree with you the Authorities made it clear that the Vaccines would stop the spread and stop the disease. They kept hounding us, saying that vaccinations help the other person. Fauci himself said that the Vaccines would provide Herd Immunity. Herd Immunity does not occur in "non sterilizing" vaccines. Old Article for reference:https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2020/09/23/fauci-were-nowhere-near-herd-immunityin-the-us/?sh=2bfab3c979f3They had no idea what the success rate would be and did not know the complications and maybe even hid the adverse effects from the medical community and the populace. If he thought the Vaccines would induce Herd Immunity, either he does not know what that means or does not know what the vaccines will do or is just lying and making thing up out of thin air..

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:35:24 pm
content: Perhaps the global warming hypothesis people can concentrate on cooling down the Sun:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/08/02/the-sun-is-now-more-active-than-nasa-predicted-it-could-be-in-its-strongest-cycle-since-records-began/?sh=4f3eae13cd59

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 12:45:36 pm
content: In 1978, being 17 years old and already very well educated STEM-wise, I always watched technical and scientific TV programs.This science journalist and psychology professor in the picture was quite famous.His daughter co-founded the Green party in Germany.Since that time, I disdained this Green movement, due to their absolute incompetence in technical and scientific matters.In this show, he just presents the Mauna Loa CO2measurement, and explains that in 2050 a temperature rise of 2..3°C would be expected.He also explains the other 5 or 6 threats in discussion, from the Club of Rome: "Limits of Growth". He already explained the oil consumption dilemma, i.e. that a reduction in the Industry nations would not lead to a global reduction, because there would be a rising consumption in the 3rd World, instead.So the Exxon study is nothing of a secret, as these facts were obviously publicly known.I remember well, that I was a bit frightened by this TV show, but due to my education, I always thought that we'd be able to find technical solutions.Like Prof von Ditfurth, I'm as convinced, that over-population will kill or reduce mankind sooner or later, but there's barely anything we can do about.I think, I aligned my personal behavior following this and similar other publications.So I always tried to save resources as far as I could. My passion to repair EVERYTHING and design technical things originates from that period of time, already.Frank

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 01:11:34 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 09:55:40 amEr.. you've completely lost me. What effect did this evening clock (whatever that was) have, or meant to have? I assumed it would be a change in people turning up in hospital due to covid symptoms, but your comment above seems to note that places didn't get less busy and there is nothing whatever about covid symptoms. Perhaps you could clarify since your original (quoted here) suggests the former, which is the context for my comment:Quote

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 01:17:07 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 10:37:25 amThe last thing we need during a crisis it multiple disagreements of what, when, how, etc. You want rules by social media, and the loudest and flashiest video will win.We elect governments to deal with that stuff. Scientist can advise them (and disagree) but the politicians decide policy. They may get it wrong, and if they do so mendaciously then hopefully they get voted out and a better government installed. That's how you get to be able to do 70mph up a motorway without dodging head-on cars whose drivers think the right way must be to drive on the right, or middle, or whatever tiktok craze is this week.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 01:30:09 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 01:17:07 pmMy post was about the (non-)reaction from the scientific community, not about the choice of politicians.In fact we do need multiple disagreements, if the effect of policy is interfering with fundamental rights of citizens, or are using taxpayers money for goals that are questionable.How much should the dutch taxpayer pay for a policy that states, we will reduce global warming with 0,000036C worldwide?The taxpayer is not dumb and knows that a day later in China a coal mine is opened that completely offsets this measure.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 01:37:24 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pmSo, we have the smartest person in history among us. The rest of us struggle to figure out how the interplay of various factors in a complex system will play out, and need to do extensive research in the real world. You've worked out how to reduce it to logic.Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pmCan you cite your sources, or does your logical process avoid the need for them?Quote from: tom66 on August 04, 2023, 11:13:08 pmSo, you don't exclude complexity completely from your analysis.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 01:54:05 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 01:11:34 pmThe proposed statement was: "less people will meet each other, in that way stop spreading the corona virus and shorten the lockdown"Indeed in Amsterdam the cameras showed evidence that there was almost no effect on the streets.The rule was effective on 23 January 2021 and lasted till 28 april 2021 04.30 . They expected a reduction of 9% à 10%.Look for yourselfthe data(under the heading "Opnames door de tijd heen") on hospital admissions in these days. This data was available on a daily basis.Well politicians are affected by choices from the voters. The scientific community not. And this non action described results now in a situation where people don't trust vaccines anymore even in the case one should consider safe.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 02:02:05 pm
content: The Minimum Infective Dose of human viral diseases appears to be quite low and it would not be easy to get his low. The MID 50 is defined as the amount of inoculum necessary to cause disease in 50% of the exposed population.In other words it is extremely likely that any exposure to these viruses is WAY higher than the MID 50.The infectivity of bacteria varies and sometimes a LOT of bacteria are necessary to cause infection. This is not to say you are entirely safe with a low dose of a pathogen.If you wish to gain extra credit for your PHD (piled higher and deeper) {apologies to those with the Phd degree} here is an article to keep you busy for quite a while.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7090536/

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:13:35 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 01:30:09 pmMakes no difference. The links you gave (DailyMail!) are all arguable, probably have been argued, and all you're after is someone that will shout your view the loudest. For instance, the last URL about non-warming in Antartica doesn't have to mean global warming isn't happening - you're making the mistake that climate change means everywhere will see an increase in temperature whereas in fact is means that some places will cool because of changing climate patterns. The Japanese station may be one such, but who knows? You've read about the place - it is not secret!

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 01:54:05 pmOK, well what I get from that is people ignored the demand and there was no change in hospital data BECAUSE people ignored the demand. All it's pointing out is that people can be dicks and in the face of that nothing changes. It's not news and the same happens in other fields. See MAGA/Trump, for instance.QuoteScientists do science, not play CIV for real. They are no more qualified or capable of running a government than a celebrity has a meaningful opinion on any subject other than acting. And yet...Also, scientists disagree with each other (as they should) so which particular set should make the political decisions? The ones on your side?Aaaannnd... running a country is a juggling act balancing many competing and incompatible requirements. Some obvious thing may not happen because it would screw up some more important but less obvious thing, or vice versa, of course. And that's in a well-run government.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:22:20 pm
content: Well, the climate scientists (not me) are making claims aboutglobalwarming. They are not telling the whole truth if they don't say anything about the local conditions.It makes all the difference if one stands up or not.I'm not after the loudest shout. I'm stating quite clearly: that the science community has lost the trust of the public by their own deeds/words.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:28:32 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 03:18:47 pmNope, people didn't ignore. They did their usual thing. The policy was not necessary .

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:50:57 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 05, 2023, 03:28:32 pmAgain, this is why we have governments to decide when things are necessary for the general good. Individuals cannot determine that because they don't have the 20kft view, don't know what else is going on, etc. Whether the policy was necessary technically or not, with hindsight or not, is ignoring its intent and just showing how difficult it is to get people to act for the common good.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 03:56:05 pm
content: Again you are missing the point.The point is the scientific community, with all their wisdom, didn't stand up and corrected the politics and informed the public.That is what is causing the distrust of the science.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 04:23:41 pm
content: Absolutely, the scientific community and the medical community were threatened by the Govmint bureaucrats. Doctors had licenses to loose if they did not follow the party policy, professors would loose their jobs.So they just rolled over and put up with the idiocy.You could easily get censored on any medical blog for not agreeing with the party line, so no one knew that there were people who did not agree with it. Social media was biased against any dissent.If you believe in Govmint control and that it is good, you must also believe that dissent is either a traitorous action or a mental disease. Welcome to totalitarianism.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 05:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 05, 2023, 04:23:41 pmI don't regard the Medical community, especially the epidemiologists and virologists as "Scientists", as especially here in Germany they did neither use Scientific methods, as of part 1) of my description, nor did they use overall Risk Assessment methods as I mentioned about our A3 Sheet method.In Germany, they filed a final report about the whole government "Expert" team consisting mainly of medical guys, and it was clearly stated, that this report could not decide, whether the measures like lock-down of the whole country was appropriate or not, or had any positive effect, due to the fact, that the medical team did not collect appropriate data material at all.As Germany was not able to make automated data acquisition, they (Mrs. Merkel) simply locked our country down, when a limit of 35 incidents (*) / 100k people was exceeded. This arbitrary limit was simply defined by the maximum manual capacity of our local health offices, which received the data by FAX only.Germany is really not a country of good engineering any more.Frank(*) "incidents" meant reported number of people which were supposed to be sick with C.Officially, later, they of course argued with the limited Intense Medical Care capacity of the hospitals.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 05:36:49 pm
content: One thing that winds me up though is if you have questions about climate change you automatically get labelled as a denier and therefore are not allowed in the conversation.As a kid of the 80's I grew up with the fear of the Ozone layer being destroyed and we even had a TV show calledCaptain Planet and the Planeteersand that made a big thing about cleaning up the world. Yet it didn't do a thing to change stuff if the current press is to be believed.Part of me is aware the masses always need a level of fear to keep the populace in line, cold war, world war, starvation etc. but as you get older you just see it as the way things are, no point getting angry. It is like working hard for a boss that will only make more money on your hard work.I do note the wording has changed over the years to better cover their arses. It was global cooling then warming, and now its climate change. The planet is billions of years old and we are using 170 years of temperature data (50 for sea water) and you can use that to make statements about the change.I can't see that every house/business now has indoor heating and cooling that pushes heat into the surrounding area, with the number of people and houses we have these days that is clearly going to have an effect on the temperature. We also have lost our green land and trees that on a hot summers day are very good at making cool zones.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:03:17 pm
content: QuoteDidn't the ban on CFCs fix that up? Can't recall any recent press stuff about this either way, so if you have a relevant link I'd be interested to see it.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:17:36 pm
content: Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 05, 2023, 05:31:02 pmIn a way, it's not possible to apply the scientific method when dealing with an unknown situation. We didn't have a large global pandemic for a while, the last one, Spanish flu maybe killed more people than WW2. So our politicians are not prepared to handle it, because they are not experts. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Stepping down and creating a party neutral cabinet with experts. Almost no politician said that they have no idea how to handle the situation while stepping down, and that's just criminal.You can even look at the German government when they had a diversity hire as the Minister of Defense, who never served, while there is a war going on in Europe.Instead important positions are filled up with ideologs and idiots.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:43:43 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 05, 2023, 06:17:36 pmI fully disagree on the first part"Scientists" are able to analyze existing data, and from that make good predictions for unknown cases and into the future.As well they always do research on expected future scenarios, "what would be, if".Those are the key features of a real scientist, I guess.Especially in this case our Robert Koch Institute had a big data base of all virus epidemics, pandemics and the "seasonal" flu, probably covering over 100 years.Those epidemiologist's for a long time already expected another pandemic event. Remember, that the Pig Flu about 15 years ago, Ebola, and also AIDS were already epidemic or pandemic diseases. So the medical guys should have been prepared a long time ago.. sure the politicians everywhere have absolutely no clue, neither in medical nor in climate / energy questions.Another story: In late 2019, Physicists from Göttingen, Aerosol research, only they investigated theoretically on the transport mechanism of viruses under different circumstances like talking, singing, making music, and they made the suiting experiments. They found out the distance of those ominous 1.5m, where the aerosol particles fall down by gravity, and they did practical research on the effectiveness of different kind of face masks. They also investigated on room particle filters for schools.None of their results were taken over by those government experts, and after 3 years of blind flying, our gvt. was still not able to recognize anything useful, especially our infamous Prof. "Karlchen" Lauterbach, who was by chance my fellow student at RWTH Aachen at that early 1980ties.Frank

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:44:01 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 06:03:17 pmIt would appear that changes to CFC usage have reversed the problem, and the ozone holes have been closing up.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 06:46:52 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 06:03:17 pmI remember reading a story about the hole in the ozone is repairing itself so has been reported but why celebrate a success when you carry on pushing the next panic.https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/rebuilding-ozone-layer-how-world-came-together-ultimate-repair-job

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 07:29:47 pm
content: Quote from: Dr. Frank on August 05, 2023, 06:43:43 pmOK, I don't disagree with you about that part. They could and they have made models. That is part of the scientific method. Let's look at what the question is:Is the lock down, socially distance and closing down stores an effective method of containing the virus while not wrecking the economy completely?We didn't go full circle on the scientific method. We didn't have control groups. After the data was gathered there was no interpretation, and often times people were forbid from publishing their results. There was no retest. Well, in a way there was, because the lockdown was more and more lifted after a while. In any case, IMHO the scientific method failed when it comes to the big questions about how to handle it. It triumphed in other areas, the fast development of MRNA is a testament to that.It wasn't the failure of the biology, it was a breakdown of social sciences. The failure of that, we are seeing in so many of today's issues, where it provides no resolution to most of today's issues.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 07:42:35 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 05, 2023, 07:29:47 pmYou're correct, as well. But those scientific methods you correctly described, were simply not applied.I also doubt, that these guys ever have heard of that stuff.From sad personal experience, I regard medicine in most cases as a Trial-and-Error handcraft.Therefore I liked the series "House, M.D. " so much.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 08:29:14 pm
content: I regard Medicine as Applied Science, but differs from Engineering in that almost everything in Medicine is still a Black Box. We still do not understand all the interconnections and are trying to analyze the box using only something like using a VNA to analyze input and output from an extremely complicated circuit. That is the best short analogy I can come up with now.Not to mention the fact that the schematics from the manufacturer are not to be found.Everyone is fond of using statistics to analyze the situation but they fail to realize that statistics are just an analysis of "chance".Now, the recent COVID illustrated the false predictions and wrong assumptions and orders that the Govmint put into place, there is no excuse for outright falsehoods being held up as the truth. Then there was and still is the persecution of those who disagree. This is not science, this is"Do as you are told".By the way I liked "House" also, I especially liked his kindly bedside manner and his equitable treatment of his colleagues..

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 08:48:08 pm
content: Yes yes, Ebola. Paid kids falling into mud and rolling in the mud in imaginary pain while their mothers watched a few meters away. Who leaked that, someone from Reuters i believe?

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:11:24 pm
content: In the UK and with Covid, the political class expended a lot of energy convincing the population they were following scientific guidance. And with Climate change, the same mantra of appearing to rely on solid facts applies. Sadly, scientists whose funding often depends on political favour, are obligated to provide the political class with the 'evidence' they need to make them look good, commanding and/or decisive. Even if they know the real truth, no scientist wants to be branded as a whistle blower, not when their institution's budget is subject to review by a politically biased oversight committee. When things go wrong, politicians brief the media against their own scientific advisors, claiming they were misled by flawed science

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:30:41 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on August 05, 2023, 08:48:08 pmPerverse financial incentives mean we have very poor records about a lot of health issues. A number of African doctors have said that huge numbers of deaths used to be reported as AIDS in their countries, because that brought lots of international funding they didn't get for the real causes of those deaths. You can't blame them. You can blame funding agencies that hand out funds depending on which form of human suffering is fashionable at the moment.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 09:40:50 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 05, 2023, 09:11:24 pmBeing over on Christmas Island you no doubt missed this kind of thing:Two groups of prominent scientists write open letters with conflicting advice on how to tackle virusCoronavirus: why experts disagree so strongly over how to tackle the diseasePlenty more. Politicians could ignore their advisors advice (if given), but when the advisors can't even agree on the facts it's no surprise that everyone is seen as clueless, a shill, whatever insult is currently du jour. Oh, throw in two spoons of hindsight and it's a mix made for conspiracy theorists.

author: Dr. Frank
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 10:30:36 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 09:40:50 pmThanks, very interesting.I'm writing too much, I fear.Anyhow, here are my last thoughts about the subject, but it's again about Engineering, i.e. optimized decision making in a commercial company.Well, for both problems you can observe, that the decision makers/experts are fully focused on their problems, tried to solve them, get rid of them.Those people were announced because they work solely on these domains.These cognitive limits led to the big social and economic damages, as latter aspects were not addressed at all.An optimized method is to bring experts from many different fields of knowledge to illuminate all possible root causes and especially all consequences of the different solutions. They also bring a lot of ideas with them.In our company, we regularly solve the problem of terminated components, which is as well a real threat to our business, by calling in purchasing, logistics, quality, engineering, sales, process technology, manufacturing, layout, component technologists, as required.The problem itself could be solved by purchasing only, to convince the supplier to withdraw his PTN. This only happens in 1..2% of the 300 PTNs each year, of course coming with a certain price tag. So the other colleagues all come up with their ideas, how to make a work-around, i.e. not solving the problem itself, but eliminating the threat, instead.Logistics can organize an All Time Buy, Quality might look for alternative suppliers, Engineering could use 2nd source parts, make a re-engineering, Sales could offer the customer an upgraded instrument which would not use the component, and so forth. From all these solutions, you'd chose the optimal configuration, i.e. lowest price tag, shortest response time, smallest effort.In case of COVID, it's of course very delicate to weigh up threat of human life vs. social and economic aspects, but latter as well are important for the well-being of people, in case of wrong decisions even more. But politicians only task is, to take care for the well-being of the people, in all aspects. Here they swear an oath on the Holy Bible to do so, but usually they forget and only do their own thing.I always wondered, why here in GER no engineers or companies joint to the energy business were involved in all the discussions and decisions. Economy experts also were not consulted, as well not the population.These Climate experts and activists just see the White Elephant in the room, i.e. a possible danger from Climate Change, create a lot of anxiety and brutally push through their 1 dimensional decisions, w/o any regards to huge losses or complete failure of our country.My company would have long been bankrupt, if we would solve the issues that way.Frank

author: Veteran68
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2023, 11:55:59 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 05, 2023, 11:52:41 amNot to sidetrack but pointing out that your method of quoting others is extremely frustrating to make sense of. Please quote using the forum Quote feature, like I'm doing in this post and like everyone else is doing. It takes care of formatting it so you can clearly see who said what when you're 4 or 5 quotes deep.Now back to the debate...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 12:18:25 am
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 05, 2023, 09:11:24 pmThey have no need to go against their own scientific advisors. They have lots of advisors, and there will always be some of them with a point of view the politicians like.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 02:02:52 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 09:40:50 pmExcept that politicans implemented lockdowns and mandates, and destroyed civil liberties. And they kept them up and double and tripled down, for in some cases, years, for obvious fear of having been called wrong. They are absolutely to blame and deserve everything they get.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 02:06:02 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 05, 2023, 06:44:01 pmLast I heard, yes, it was healing, but it's taken 40 years or something.The difference with CFC usage was that eliminating it didn't change, interrupt, or destroy anyone's life. It was an easy and obvious change which we just did pretty much overnight with almost no consequence.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 03:08:48 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2023, 02:06:02 amSimilarly, they should have phased out a whole lot of food additives, such as artificial colors and high fructose corn syrup. It would help improve health in general, which helps reduce severe Covid cases.Or they could phase out factory farming to replace it with sustainable farming, which would both improve health and reduce the environmental impact of farming. It would also eliminate the risk of factory farming starting another pandemic. (Which has happened before in 2009, luckily a very light one.)

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 03:17:22 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2023, 02:06:02 amI have skin acutely sensitive to UV exposure. And since I have decided to go bald for the last few decades, I have to be careful, using sun-screen on my head if the local UV index is high and I know I will be outside for more than an hour, usually in the summer. However, I cannot say how much of this extended effect is due to Ozone depletion of if this is just natural for me. This was less of a problem in the 1970s, though I still had to be extra careful of sunburn on my skin.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 09:10:49 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 06, 2023, 03:08:48 amThe lack of promotion, indeed downright deliberate active discouragement (to the point of people being banned for daring to mention it etc) of good health practices during covid was one of the big crimes of the whole pandemic.No promotion of vitamin D, locking people inside without exercise or outdoor exposure etc. Disgusting.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 11:45:21 am
content: So if the handlers of the people have decided to "push" a global warming alarmist theme on us what is the benefit to them.They want to limit fossil fuel use. And this is to "control" the people? What do they get from causing us to freeze to death in the winter?If ya think about the global elite make out the very best when society is functioning and everyone is working and paying their taxes.Please elaborate on the supposed motives to enslave us by taking our fossil fuels.

author: Microdoser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 12:07:16 pm
content: Happy, healthy, people, who are not concerned about something terrible happening in the near future, are bad for profit.It has always been thus, and it will remain so.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 12:55:48 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 06, 2023, 11:45:21 amIf you can answer the question of why people choose to become politicians, you will have the answer to your question.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 02:37:07 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2023, 09:10:49 amAgreed, the fuse of a future health emergency is slowly burning away.Here in the UK, working from home became known as drinking from home. Many a Zoom or Teams call was made under the influence of a gin with no tonic. And why not? There was no one from Human Resources to check the specific gravity of an employee's coffee mug. At the height of lockdown number one, I was shopping in my local mini mart and noted I was the only one not buying hard spirits. Or liquor as you yanks call it. The pandemic was a disaster for the hospitality industry but a bonanza for the drinks industry. Fuelled by the income effect of furlough payments and not having to pay over half of ones disposable income on extortionate train fares, the online delivery industry expanded. Drivers delivering booze became key workers, just like nurses. Britain might be thought of a nation of middle class alcoholics, but it's all done behind closed doors and as such, is a very respectable form of substance abuse. Anyway, middle class people always place their emptied prosceco bottles in the correct coloured recycling bin. Then came the order to sober up and return to the office. Many have remained working from home.On a Climate change note, Greta Thunberg has cancelled a special VIP guest appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival in 'protest' at one of the sponsors having a link to fossilised fuels. Cancel culture or she just doesn't fancy rowing across the North Sea to Scotland from her homeland in Westeros? Waste a few milliamps if you wish by clicking this >https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23701413.greta-thunberg-quits-edinburgh-festival-row-baillie-gifford/

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 03:11:31 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on August 06, 2023, 02:37:07 pmMaybe she finally decided to finish high school and needs to sit in class?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 04:50:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 06, 2023, 09:10:49 amThat's the same in the UK, and seems to be tied to the "everything's racist" industry. Until the late 1960s almost everyone in the UK was white. Some Caribbean people came to the UK in the 1950s, but that's about all. In the late 60s an influx of Indian and Pakistani people occurred. A few years later those people had small children. The muslim ones started turning up at doctors and hospitals with rickets, a disease that had pretty much disappeared from the UK. As more cases turned up, specialist clinics reopened. A public awareness campaign about vitamin D deficiency for brown skinned people in northern climates, especially those with a culture of completely covering their children, began. The problem subsided. Now its being realised that all brown skinned people in northern climates are somewhat low on vitamin D, especially through the winter, unless they supplement natural vitamin D. Even many white people are having problems because they spend so much time inside. Do we see a public health campaign about this? Nope. People are so afraid to point out that people have differences they try to ignore the problem.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 05:09:33 pm
content: Perhaps we need a govmint decree for Vit D enriched booze?I am working on another idea for the non drinking Moslems.

author: bezzada
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 05:42:48 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 06, 2023, 11:45:21 amI don't think it is necessarily about "enslavement" or any other "big reset" conspiracy theories. I think it is more like "fear driven marketing". What would you do if you invested billions of dollars in the green energy technologies? Wouldn't fear mongering be beneficial to promote your products? Sounds like a very practical approach. And it is very easy to back up one's doomsday agenda by all kinds of "scientific reports". Then there are also climate change grifters like Al Gore who made millions on fear mongering and doomsday predictions that never came true.Here is a "confession of a climate scientist" by Mototaka Nakamura.https://c-c-netzwerk.ch/images/ccn-blog_articles/717/Confessions-Nakamura.pdftl;dr:He doesn't question the "global warming" hypothesis but only the "catastrophic" part of it.There are serious flaws in climate "forecasting" models that makes it possible to get any desired results based on arbitrary input parameters.None of the climate simulation models used for predictions can reproduce the current climate accurately despite the heavy tuning efforts by climate researchers.It has not been proven that the warming effect actually results in a rise in the global mean surface temperature, because of the extremely complex processes operating in the real climate system that cannot be accurately predicted due the flaws in the grossly oversimplified models and lack of computational power required for better accuracy. For example the solar energy output is modeled as a constant(!). A quasi-global observation system has been operating only for 50 years or so. Temperature data before then were collected over extremely small areas and, thus, have severe spatial bias. So we basically cannot rely on the pre-1980's data on the temperature trend.And most importantly, a lot of the research is privately funded including by the "green energy" corporations with a clear conflict of interest. Considering the uncertainty of the models based on the arbitrary tuning parameters, it is very easy to produce the desired results based on the sponsor's agenda.And finally, even if you didn't know or understand any of these claims, this is all you need to know about these climate activists:

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 09:34:51 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 01, 2023, 02:18:44 amOn the contrary I think that sceptical sources, relative to your own views, are exactly where you should be going, at least sometimes. What better way to test and hone your own understanding? Far better than relying on the judgement of others, even if they are Nobel laureates.For example, if you know some maths and physics, then this page on theco2coalition websiteis quite enlightening. It summarises a paper by Van Wijngaarden and Happer and includes the comment “Doubling the CO2 concentration increases the infrared absorption by only a few percent. The reason is that extensive saturation takes place”.This isn’t saturation, it’s a logarithmic response, those few percent make all the difference.On page 26 of thefull paperlinked to on the above page it states that “Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would only cause a forcing increase of ∆F {i} = 3.0 W/m2”.Only? … Compare that figure with the figure of 2.16 (1.9 to 2.41) W/m2for the approximately 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2019 that is given on thisIPCC page. 2.16 W/m2for a 50% increase is equivalent to 2.16 * log(2) / log(1.5) = 3.69 W/m2for a doubling, so there is no substantial disagreement with the IPCC on the level of forcing.In section 6 starting on page 43 of the W & H paper there is a short, mostly hand-waving type estimate of the climate sensitivity, which comes up with a figure of 1.3K for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. This is significantly lower than theIPCC estimatefor equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3C (likely 2.5C to 4C, very likely 2C to 5C). However, there are obvious weaknesses in their argument in this section. They are explicitly doubling the concentration of CO2, but with no change in other greenhouse gas concentrations, which includes water vapour, a very significant amplifier for the sensitivity. There is also no indication that they accounted for the rise in the relevant emission heights that this doubling will cause. (They do briefly mention emission heights in the section of the paper where they calculate the forcing.)On the other hand, in thislater and similar paperby the same authors, in section 7 starting on page 21, they make a more detailed estimate of the sensitivity that does include changes in absolute humidity and emission heights. Here they calculate a sensitivity of 2.3K as shown in the table on page 32, which also mentions a 1.4K figure for the unrealistic case of fixed absolute humidity. This value of 2.3K is reasonably consistent with the IPCC value.So does this paper demonstrate the claimed extensive saturation? It doesn't look like it to me, but don't take my word for it, I'm just a nobody on the web with a rusty 40+ year old physics degree and too much spare time on his hands. Read the papers and judge for yourself.Co2 coalition just looks like an advocacy group to me. What they say seems to be technically true, but heavily spun in a way to suit their own agenda, as is typical for such groups. It may catch out the unwary, but life is like that, we live in an ocean of propaganda. I guess that your intellectual giant isn't above bending the truth a little when it suits him, just like the rest of us.Apologies to all for replying to a message so far back in this discussion, but I’m a slow thinker, and it took me a while to digest the papers.Fixed W m2to W/m2. Ooops.

author: khs
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 10:24:31 pm
content: A simple VERY rough estimation:Doubling CO2 increases effective power to 3 W/m²Solar constant is about 1000 W/m²So we get (1000 W/m² + 3 W/m²) / 1000 W / m²=1.003We have about 273K+20K = 293KSo with 1.003 we get about 294KSo the temperature increases about 1K - if I'm not wrong.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2023, 10:38:14 pm
content: And then we have natural events that each impacted on the earths climate by way of ash and/or water ejection into the stratosphere.....are these included in climatic modeling ?If not, why not ?https://www.aeronomie.be/en/news/2021/30-years-after-mt-pinatubo-eruption-illustration-relationship-between-volcanoes-andhttps://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 12:02:14 am
content: Quote from: khs on August 06, 2023, 10:24:31 pmAn equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.3K isn’t my estimate, it’s from page 32 ofDependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five MostAbundant Greenhouse Gasesby Van Wijngaarden and Happer, two scientists whose papers are frequently cited on AGW sceptical websites. They could be wrong.1000 W/m2is more like the peak solar power when the sun is directly overhead. The earth intercepts a disc of solar radiation of area pi * R2, where R is the radius of the earth. The surface area of the earth is 4 * pi * R2, so the average solar power is more like 1/4 of the peak power.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 08:03:09 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 06, 2023, 10:38:14 pmIf the scientists on the AGW sceptical side of the argument believe that to be the case, then they should create and publish their own models that do include such effects, or adapt an existing published model. What could be a more powerful counterargument to say the NASA GISS general circulation models than an alternative, scientifically plausible GCM, that fits the last few decades climate records just as accurately but does not require an increasing level of CO2 to do so? As far as I am aware no such alternative GCMs exist and one has to ask why?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 08:51:17 am
content: Quote from: cbutlera on August 07, 2023, 08:03:09 amThese were real events not some modelled BS but with a measurable impact on the atmosphere and the worlds weather/temperatures.What's not to believe ?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 09:10:48 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 07, 2023, 08:51:17 amThat these type of effects are significant and have not been included in the GCMs. I don't know if they have been included or not, but if the scientists on the AGW sceptical side think they are significant and have been ignored, then they should produce their own GCMs. Even if they think that GCMs are complete BS, a scientifically plausible GCM that fits the climate records sufficiently well and doesn't require a rising level of CO2 to do so would still be a very effective counterargument. Why don’t they create one? Even if only to demonstrate that "you can prove anything you want with a model". The counter to that statement is "well do it then".

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 11:27:15 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog onYesterdayat 02:06:02 am>Quote from: coppice on August 05, 2023, 06:44:01 pm>Quote from: PlainName on August 05, 2023, 06:03:17 pmIt would appear that changes to CFC usage have reversed the problem, and the ozone holes have been closing up.Last I heard, yes, it was healing, but it's taken 40 years or something.The difference with CFC usage was that eliminating it didn't change, interrupt, or destroy anyone's life. It was an easy and obvious change which we just did pretty much overnight with almost no consequence.But they replaced a lot of these "Ozone Depleters" with mixtures of volatilehydrocarbons, typicallypropane, n-butaneandisobutane.[1Isn't hydrocarbon gas supposed to be really bad for global warming?The propellants do work fine in potato guns though.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 12:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 07, 2023, 11:27:15 amThe harm of a given gas per kg is measured as global warming potential, where 1.0 is equivalent to 1kg of CO2.Propane GWP = ~0.072Butane GWP = ~0.022(both figures 20 year assessments)So, no, essentially.In fact, propane has been proposed as a refrigerant for small air conditioning systems given it causes so little harm if accidentally released - though its flammability is obviously of concern.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 02:50:45 pm
content: So what is methane rating?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 03:20:30 pm
content: Quote from: Wallace Gasiewicz on August 07, 2023, 02:50:45 pmYou can Google these they're not secret. It is around 85x at a 20 year timescale and about 25 over 100 year timescale. Most climatologists seem to prefer the 20 year figure as it's more important to consider short term feedback loops, but either way methane emissions are bad news.The GWP drops because methane decomposes to CO2 and H2O slowly due to UV in the upper atmosphere, which both have lower GWPs.

author: JustMeHere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 03:27:49 pm
content: When plants die, they rot and release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The grass will eventually become methane if the cow eats it or not. Leaves from trees die and rot into greenhouse gasses too. Limbs fall off and rot. The tree itself will eventually die and rot away too.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 09:11:56 pm
content: Quote from: JustMeHere on August 07, 2023, 03:27:49 pmYep.At ground level more happens than most are aware.The latest fad today is protection of biodiversity by way of waterway enhancements, fencing streams and adding plantings which exclude livestock where for millennia they have accessed their water requirements.While a worthy cause it has never been properly thought through as it also excludes waterway maintenance and in time will create flooding problems as the waterways clog and become overgrown.Slowly the watercourses will revert to an earlier natural swamp state full of rotting materials all exuding.....you guessed it, Methane !Further this worthy cause of planting and fencing waterways provides a wonderful superhighway for vermin to more easily spread far and wide to compromise the very thing Gubbermints are trying to enhance, biodiversity !It seems even the highly educated have little idea of what actually happens at ground level when blinded by apparent worthy projects.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2023, 09:33:09 pm
content: Quote from: JustMeHere on August 07, 2023, 03:27:49 pmBelieve it or not this has been considered, methane eventually decomposes into CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is converted into O2 via photosynthesis and stored via ocean processes.Pre-industrialised society the rate that methane was created was not hazardous, because it decomposed quickly enough that feedback loops were not formed.The fear is now as the climate warms we could see permafrost (such as the large plains in Siberia) start to melt which often releases trapped methane gas. This could cause further warming and further releases and it doesn't matter how much in CO2 emissions we abate, the methane has a far more significant impact.Current levels of methane are equivalent to roughly 50ppm additional CO2 (~15-20 years future CO2 emissions).Tipping points like these are exceedingly difficult to assess, with huge error bars. The risk is we unintentionally stray into one.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 12:37:31 pm
content: Quote from: bezzada on August 06, 2023, 05:42:48 pmIt's not a conspiracy theory. It's straight from their website:https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-resetOh, and this is from yesterday:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/08/apprenticeships-could-change-the-way-americans-work-and-learn/Can't afford a college degree? Work for free at this large company and receive their accolades that are useless everywhere else.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 01:27:36 pm
content: QuoteWhere does it say you have to work for free? Apprenticeships are paid, internships are unpaid.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 02:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 08, 2023, 01:27:36 pmWe need more apprenticeships, too many people getting degrees at university in subjects with little relevance to their interested subject area at huge expense.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 04:24:32 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 07, 2023, 09:33:09 pmTo put this into electrical engineering terms, this is a type of positive feedback. There are probably plenty of similar mechanisms that we don't know about yet that could cause even more warming and more detrimental change.

author: MarginallyStable
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 04:53:44 pm
content: QuoteFear mongering about "mechanisms that we don't know". Let me rephrase this in another wayThere are probably plenty of opposite mechanisms that we don't know about yet that could cause less warming/possible cooling and slow down/reverse change.We then would fear the demise of the human race via cooling instead of warming.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 05:58:55 pm
content: Quote from: MarginallyStable on August 08, 2023, 04:53:44 pmCould you indicate what those opposite mechanisms are? We know of human aerosol emissions slightly cooling the climate, but what else is there?Methane permafrost is understood, the problem is, we have no way to accurately measure how much methane the permafrost contains. It varies in concentration depending on the age of the marsh and the type of plant matter that is built up there. Estimates range from equivalent 15% of human CO2 emissions to up to 50%, and the rate at which such gas could be released also varies, from most released by 2050 to most released by 2100.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 06:40:16 pm
content: Quote from: MarginallyStable on August 08, 2023, 04:53:44 pmWhat does this mean ?What is the relevance ?It's like saying that if my house is on fire i might as well just stand by cause some unknown effect could put out the fire.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 06:49:17 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 08, 2023, 05:58:55 pm1) Photosynthesis2) Reflection

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 06:59:29 pm
content: QuoteTo change the subject slightly, which would be, ah, least worst? I think we could keep warm in the cold, but it would be more difficult to get cool if it got hot. Though personally I prefer a nice summers day to winter...

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 07:45:46 pm
content: Depending on definition of 'cold' - vehicles would have difficulties to start, or not start at all, batteries would underperform and we will need to spend more energy, to keep them warm. And we'd need to go back to using animal fur for top clothing.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pm
content: I was always wondering why there is the consensus in climate science, especially when other scientific fields often leave ample room for debate.In physics, for example, there is no consensus on topics such as dark matter. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory, which is one of the alternatives to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model, is still very much alive. Popular theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder is one of the vocal proponents of MOND. If you read scientific journals, you will find that in modern cosmology there is no consensus on topics such as the age of the Universe (some recent paper claims the age is twice as long), and that in physics of condensed matter there is no consensus on whether LK99 is really a superconductor.However, in climate science, somehow there is consensus. I wonder why?This short video explains how the consensus is manufactured:

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 09:58:51 pm
content: Every time there is a claimed scientific consensus relayed by media on some topic with deep political implications, you know it smells funny.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 10:14:54 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 08, 2023, 06:59:29 pmIf we were somehow emitting something that cooled the climate by too much, presumably it would be possible (with a few consequences) to just burn more fossil fuels to warm the climate by some equivalent amount.The opposite idea is where things likehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectioncome into play, the idea that we can inject cooling, reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, like sulfur dioxide. The risk is that we really don't understand what such huge quantities of SO2 would do to everything else. It also offers no solution for the acidification of oceans by CO2 absorption.Another interesting alternative I've heard proposed is a "solar sunshade" positioned roughly around L1, attenuating solar radiation by around 1%, though the cost and time required to launch it make climate abatement seem cheap. Such methods bring short term fixes, but as CO2 levels rise, they eventually need to upgraded, and if a 1% shade is expected to require some 300 launches of a Starship class launcher to reach orbit, it doesn't really seem like a sustainable or economic solution.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 10:43:11 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pmBecause climate science does not lie at the outer boundaries of theoretical physics.When there is only one credible theory it can hardly be surprising that there is a consensus.There has long been consensus on all of the relevant thermodynamic and other physical laws on which climate science is built. The basic theory of anthropogenic global warming is more than 100 years old. Using modern GCMs (general circulation models) this theory has been thoroughly tested against the last 50 years or so of climate records. Where are the alternative competing theories that can, when tested with GCMs, get even remotely as close to the same level of agreement with those records?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 10:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pmA lack of consensus in the area of dark matter is hardly surprising given no one has actually been able to observe anything other than its proposed impacts on large galaxies and their neighbours. We don't even know if it actually exists or not, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a better explanation for their rotational characteristics, for instance.There is reasonably strong consensus in other non-climate science fields. For instance, quantum mechanics is more or less universally accepted as the explanation for the very small behaviors at the subatomic level. There may be the odd disagreement here or there as to the theoretical level with things like string theory. The same applies in climate science, but everyone agrees with the observed results even if they don't fully accept how things got there.I don't know why you think the edge of theoretical physics is a good retort to some physical system that we can observe and model well with mostly well understood physical principles. For instance, you can measure a good part of theLWIR absorptionof CO2 very accurately using a $200 thermal camera and a blackbody. The emission profile of the sun is well understood. Plug the two together and you have a first-order estimate for CO2 forcing in watts per m^2 per part million, then input the amount of CO2 that we've pushed into the atmosphere and you have a good estimate for warming. There are lots of factors to correct, like the percentage of CO2 which ends up in oceans, but it'll show the effect closely enough if you struggle to believe that it exists at all.No one serious in climate science disagrees that the planet is warming and that humans are causing it. There's debate as to the exact extent of the anthropogenic component, and how harmful that is, but the consensus is pretty solid on the outcomes being overall bad.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 11:19:00 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 08, 2023, 12:37:31 pmApprentices aren't like Interns---they get paid while they learn, which is fair, as they are a productive part of the workforce.That was the standard way for most tradespeople to learn their trade for many years.Anywhere that has a proper Apprenticeship system officially recognises Trade qualifications.

author: Wallace Gasiewicz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 11:30:33 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 onTodayat 10:56:10 pm>Quote from: vad onTodayat 09:23:01 pmA lack of consensus in the area of dark matter is hardly surprising given no one has actually been able to observe anything other than its proposed impacts on large galaxies and their neighbours. We don't even know if it actually exists or not, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a better explanation for their rotational characteristics, for instance.There is reasonably strong consensus in other non-climate science fields. For instance, quantum mechanics is more or less universally accepted as the explanation for the very small behaviors at the subatomic level. There may be the odd disagreement here or there as to the theoretical level with things like string theory. The same applies in climate science, but everyone agrees with the observed results even if they don't fully accept how things got there.I don't know why you think the edge of theoretical physics is a good retort to some physical system that we can observe and model well with mostly well understood physical principles. For instance, you can measure a good part of theLWIR absorptionof CO2 very accurately using a $200 thermal camera and a blackbody. The emission profile of the sun is well understood. Plug the two together and you have a first-order estimate for CO2 forcing in watts per m^2 per part million, then input the amount of CO2 that we've pushed into the atmosphere and you have a good estimate for warming. There are lots of factors to correct, like the percentage of CO2 which ends up in oceans, but it'll show the effect closely enough if you struggle to believe that it exists at all.No one serious in climate science disagrees that the planet is warming and that humans are causing it. There's debate as to the exact extent of the anthropogenic component, and how harmful that is, but the consensus is pretty solid on the outcomes being overall bad.Anytime someone says something like "No one serious in climate science disagrees". I get a bit dubious as to the actual facts.This is the kind of statement that leads to ignoring or "cancelling" opposing views. This is exactly the type of speech used when the Governments imposed the COVID policies, which were not "scientific" or even logical.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 11:33:50 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on August 08, 2023, 10:43:11 pmYou didn't watch the video, did you? It's 7.5 minutes long. There couldn't be any alternative theory. Judith Curry clearly explains why.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2023, 11:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 08, 2023, 10:56:10 pmIn fact, there are many similarities between cutting-edge physics theories and climate models. Neither can be validated through direct experiments. Validating string theory requires particle accelerators beyond our current technological capabilities, while validating climate models demands a planet similar to Earth and waiting time of hundreds of years.You can find numerous scientific articles critical of string theory. How many climate models that contradict the Green’s agenda are you familiar with?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 09:08:01 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 11:33:50 pmDid you watch it? Where is this testable alternative theory described? The video is almost entirely propaganda, built around a claim that 2006 was an unusually quiet year for hurricanes and storms. Cherry picked newspaper headlines and video clips of talking heads prove nothing.The current scientific consensus means the consensus as expressed by the IPCC in the fullAR6 report. Where in this report does it predict that hurricane and storm frequency will increase monotonically year on year? Where in this report is there any claim that is not well supported by scientific research?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 12:01:20 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on August 09, 2023, 09:08:01 amThe video is about a woman who published a climate study that followed the general consus and was idolised. Then people pointed out flaws. She looked at them, realised some of what she had written was incorrect, and published the adjustments needed. For this she was vilified. The video is certainly mostly about propaganda, but is not propaganda.Have you ever looked at any of the IPCC reports? Not the media's write ups about them, but the actual reports? When I have looked at exerts they sound much less scary than the media reports, but the activists don't like anything but the most extreme arguments.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 01:03:59 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 09, 2023, 12:01:20 pmYes I have looked at it many times, I have a copy of the full report open right now. Before posting my earlier reply I searched through all 3056 pages of it for any evidence of a prediction that hurricane and storm frequency would increase monotonically year on year. I found none.I agree entirely that we should be discussing the contents of that IPCC report as representative of the scientific consensus rather than media reports. So with that in mind I ask again, where in that IPCC report is there any claim that is not supported by scientific research?I looked at the video carefully. Starting 2:00 minutes into the video the commentary says"But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research. Years with low level of hurricanes... She realised her critics were right."The only evidence given to support this was a briefly shown document from Stephen McIntyre pointing out that hurricane and storm frequency was exceptionally low in 2006. Let's assume that McIntyre's research is correct. If Curry had previously claimed that hurricane and storm frequency would increase monotonically year on year, then she was right to reevaluate her own research. Are you suggesting that she was vilified for changing her mind on a specific claim that was never a part of the consensus in the first place?What was it that motivated her to abandon that consensus? At what time mark in the video does she cite any credible scientific evidence to justify her dramatic change of position?

author: Sredni
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 04:06:18 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 05, 2023, 06:43:51 amYou have probably never read a solid state physics book.Half the pages of every solid state book serve the sole purpose of telling you that what is written in the other half is an outright lie.

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 09:09:21 pm
content: Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pmAs a counterexample to the Judith Curry video above referenced by vad, I thought that the video below looked interesting. It's about libertarian conservative and former Cato institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor and coincidentally also features John Stossel, albeit briefly. I'm not suggesting that the video carries any great significance, other than as an example that demonstrates that public figures can change their position on AGW in the other direction too. I think that it is worth watching though, even if you don't agree with it, as was the Judith Curry video. How can anyone know that they are on the right side of the argument, if they don't listen to what the other side has to say?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 10:15:52 pm
content: Who has actually read the IPCC reports in full?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 09, 2023, 11:26:09 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 09, 2023, 10:15:52 pmThe most interesting thing about the IPCC reports is the terminology they use, like "Likely", "Very Likely" etc, and they actually give a table for a % confidence level for what those terms actually mean. Once you understand what they mean, it opens your eyes bit.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 12:19:12 am
content: Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 11:33:50 pmFollow the money! Her company gets and undisclosed percentage of income from the fossil fuel industry. Another chunk of her income comes from speaking to an Audience looking for her changed position to justify their behaviour.We had to endure this sameplay from the Tobacco industry 'scientists' for decades.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 02:05:43 am
content: Hot off the press:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 03:03:59 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 10, 2023, 02:05:43 amFrom 2013?

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 03:08:04 am
content: just exactly how smart do ya have to be to be a climate science skeptic.Like in IQ terms.Lots of em here. How smart are you genuises ?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 04:31:14 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 10, 2023, 03:08:04 amSmarter than those who can't comprehend that skepticism is inherently part of the scientific process itself, and there may be legitimate reasons to question some things.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 05:25:20 am
content: Being Skeptical of ALL of one point of view has NOTHING to do with scientific anything, this is where the denial or die camp sits.Questioning sure/absolutely but until you have a rational reasoned response that will hold up to peer review it is Skepticism not Science.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 06:33:26 am
content: This is very unscientific reasoning.Group think, afraid of losing a job, or just other financial interests can make people do strange things.You have one report with multiple claims it could be that people agree on the individual claims and not on the end conclusion.Right now1500 scholars from all over the world signed a petition that there is no emergency situationregarding climate and strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.And exactly what kind of consensus we are talking about? Did you read"The scientific consensus of climate change revisited"from Dennis Bray on an earlier version of the IPCC report? Science does not have sweeping statements, but carefully worded exact statements.Quote from: cbutlera on August 09, 2023, 01:03:59 pm

author: Sredni
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 07:13:39 am
content: About the 1500 scientists from around the world...Fromhttps://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/Quote-----Also, on a more general note, this yt video explains what these sort of think tanks are and why they exist.https://youtu.be/3n3Hq7XSBjA

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 07:41:55 am
content: Quote from: tautech on August 10, 2023, 02:05:43 amThat's the DailyWail. Although they do break news and more regular sources catch up, I wouldn't take anything they post as pukka without it being confirmed elsewhere. In this case they quote Associated News, but on the AP website there is nothing.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 08:13:05 am
content: What are you trying to say?Are only the lefty parties in the Netherlands right about what is happening with the climate?Is the statement about scepticism about how we are tackling the climate situation bad because it is from a right-wing party?Is the statement the worldwide ambassadors are making, less true because of the situation in the Netherlands?Are you saying only climate scientists may have a say? Is expertise from other sciences not allowed?What exactly is wrong with "have connections to libertarian free-market groups"?Can youimagine that free-market groups can develop better ideasfor climate adaptation (if needed) than the government?In order to pay for the climate plans, you need money, and money comes from economic growth, or are you propagating more and more state debts?Quote from: Sredni on August 10, 2023, 07:13:39 am

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 08:49:14 am
content: QuoteNot specifically about climate but as a comment in general, shouldn't those versed in the arts be given a bit more credibility that those that think they have an opinion? In other words, are we happy that, say, a geologist might come on here and tell us where we're going wrong with PCB layout as an equal to those laying out PCBs as a job?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 09:07:09 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 10, 2023, 07:41:55 amEven so, if you actually read it, it's basically "this last decade warmed a little slower than anticipated according to X model, we shouldn't highlight this because it's does not appear representative of the overall trend and there's no reason to believe it means that climate change isn't happening".Which is a totally reasonable point of view. Nothing is being hidden.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 10:04:12 am
content: Quote from: Sredni on August 10, 2023, 07:13:39 amSo their professional opinion is invalid because they previously expressed the same opinion?

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 10:10:14 am
content: If she or he has a good idea that works,why not.Quote from: PlainName on August 10, 2023, 08:49:14 am

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 10:21:38 am
content: Quote from: bookaboo on August 10, 2023, 10:04:12 amWhy would their professional opinion matter when they are not professionals in the field of climate science?They are entitled to an opinion, but being a cardiologist doesn't mean you have the chops to opine accurately on climate science, and your opinion is not more relevant than any other educated person that can understand basic scientific principles.These types of think tanks push these surveys and studies all of the time because they sound authoritative, but they're really not.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 11:29:22 am
content: Their opinion does matter because the problem and, as a consequence, theproposed solutions for citizenslie outside the climate region.If we are going to mess withclimate/geoengineeringI sure would like to have some physics, geologist's experience aboard.And above all, please let the economists evaluate if a policy is sensible.I find it sensible thatS&P drops the ESG scoresfrom their evaluationsDebt ratings, not ESG scores, are the basis for financial risks.It is their task to show to us all that the myth of cheap renewable energy is not true. Since the former chancellor Gerhard Schröder in 2000 decided to phase out nuclear power in Germany and go all in on wind/solar, the energy prices have gone up.Quote from: tom66 on August 10, 2023, 10:21:38 am

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 11:54:29 am
content: That group is playing up to in their own opinions as being a 'group of scientists, scholars & professionals ....' is doesn't matter a damm if they are Medical Researchers, Theology Scholars and Professional Floor sweepers!They are no more or less entitled to being heard as primarily non experts in the field as 1500 other humans living on this small rock.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 01:10:47 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 11:29:22 amThat's conflating solution with problem.Science can tell us if something is or is likely to occur. Politics tells us how we're going to resolve that (or not). For science we need knowledgeable people, which is generally those doing it for real all the time. For politics it's whoever we've elected, and they will (or should) take into account the variousotherfields that are affected, so utilising geologists or whatever.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 01:19:56 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 10:10:14 amFine, if they have that idea it's great. But the chance of them having a valid idea is low so they have a higher hurdle to jump to prove it. Whether or not that's fair is beside the point, because if you don't have that hurdle then you just get drowned in complete rubbish that anyone with a clue would see is stupid straight off. You need filters, and being a professional is one of them.For a reasonable example, take a look at Treez threads and figure whether he is likely to have a ground-breaking idea. I suspect not, but you're welcome to spend the time listening to anything he happens to rattle off and give those ideas all the attention he thinks they deserve.(Edit: having written that it occurs to me that Treez is actually (apparently) a professional, so... hmmm...)

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 01:44:18 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on August 10, 2023, 01:10:47 pmif the urgency is that high we should look for solutions,not problems.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 02:47:41 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 01:44:18 pmIndeed. But urgency doesn't suddenly impart previously hidden knowledge or skills - using the right people for the job is even more important when gut reactions get a free pass.

author: Sredni
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 04:44:23 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 08:13:05 amNo, it's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of science vs. political groups funded by corporations with vested interests. These 'influencing groups' are using a facade of scientific plausibility to basically just shill for billionaires. Not that much different from those doctors that a few decades ago were 'convinced' that cigarettes were not that bad for your lungs.QuoteWell, when it comes to climate science, it would help to heed the warnings of... climate scientists, yes.Just like when I suspect I might have an inflamed appendix, I very much prefer to hear the opinion of a medical doctor, and not a biologist, or a botanist. Go figure.QuoteThe Latins said "cui prodest?", so since ancient times it was clear that it is always better to ask who is going to gain from this? I would add, "nihil novi sub solem". Rich/powerful people trying to influence the masses in order to retain their wealth/power.And yes, in this case there is a slant toward the right, because in general billionaires, in a capitalistic market, tend to lean towards the right. So they are the ones who have to money to fund think tanks that will churn out these constructed news and disseminate them to the press (and to the newspapers/news station/media outlets they own or control). I am pretty sure one can find examples of these sort of behavior founded by left parties or left leaning billionaires, and that does not make them any better than the ones funded by the right. They just defend their own interests, and that's not science.To make an example of a left leaning individual, not a group, that might be considered an 'influencer': during the pandemic Bill Maher has always been pushing for removing lock downs and go back to normal. On his show, he invited several guests, doctors, researchers that agreed with him on this. At first I thought... "look at Bill, he pushes for the lifting of restrictions on public assemblies because he wants to earn money with his gigs in Vegas and around the US..."But I was wrong. The real reason, I believe, came out during an interview with Jimmy Kimmel in one of his podcasts: apparently Maher had bought a considerable portion of shares in a baseball team and was LOSINGa lotof money because of the lockdowns. No wonder he was inviting 'experts' sharing his view that lockdowns were bad, and useless. Can we say that his was an impartial view? I don't think so.QuoteSo, now you are shifting from science to politics and to how to implement solution to a problem. But these climate deniers group (who have a vested interest in keeping up with the pollution) are saying the the problem does not exist and therefore no solution is needed. Again,cui prodest?

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 04:49:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 10, 2023, 10:21:38 amGood question! Following this logic, the vaccinologists and virusologists should have been allowed to have a saying in the Covid management. However, only those who sang in tune with Fauci and Trudeau were allowed to speak. The others (see Byram Bridle, Robert Malone and many, many others) were fired and deplatformed from the intelligence agencies sites renamed to social media.Moreover, the “climate scientists “ are most likely the first to be targeted by certain groups of financial interests. And you know, money talk. Who pays for the study gets the results that he expects.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 04:55:11 pm
content: Quote from: Miti on August 10, 2023, 04:49:49 pmPollsters have interesting language that they use to interact with clients to avoid saying what they are really mean, which is essentially "what answer do you want?". The questions will be worded to achieve the goal. When pollsters approach I usually respond, unless I'm busy. Its interesting to listen to the tortured wording of many of the questions, which are being read verbatim from a cue card.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 05:10:13 pm
content: I would love to hear the answers from the OP.I'm questioning because there are a lot intensions not spoken out.It is best to quote the whole expression not only "cui prodest" butcui prodest scelus is fecit, (for whom the crime advances, he has done it). And that aptly describes the case with politicians and the scientists saying the climate is in urgent state of repair,but unwilling to look at nuclear energy.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm
content: One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people?Suppose it is established that humans have been affecting the climate by their activities. The question becomes, is the damage already done? What is the predicted harm in the future as things stand? If actions might be possible to reduce future harm, what is the cost of those actions, and what other harms do the proposed actions create? If the cost and harms of proposed actions are great, are they socially justified?For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes perfectly serviceable petrol vehicles more than about1017 years old (8 for diesels) to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control.Science does not exist in the abstract. Actions have very real impacts on people, and the human impact always needs to be considered.

author: Miti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 05:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pmYes they can, they do it and they’re very proud of it. They are called politicians.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 05:59:32 pm
content: QuoteThat's the political solution.QuoteYes, and the effects of possible solutions should be determined. But they are just recognising effects, not saying that those solutions should or should not be used. It is still the politicians that decide to go one way or another based on many competing things, not the scientists.(edit: removed example that would just detract from the principle)

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 06:39:54 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 06:33:26 amThe consensus view that we are talking about is that expressed in the IPCC reports. In answer to your second question, no.The IPCC reports include input from a large number of expert reviewers. Anyone who is suitably qualified can apply to be an expert reviewer, even if they are sceptics, even if they are well known sceptics. If any of those reviewers had spotted an error and had credible evidence to support them, then the error would have been corrected.If any of those 1500 scholars had anything to contribute to the IPCC reports that they could back up with evidence, then I assume that they would have applied to be expert reviewers. The opportunity was there. If they didn't apply, then I think that speaks for itself. In a petition you can just state that you disagree, without the nuisance of actually having to provide any credible evidence to support that view.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 06:54:48 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pmSome damage has been done (e.g. dead corals due to acidification of the ocean, loss of some biodiversity and species) but it's generally accepted that the damage at this point ismostlyreversible. The majority of climate change damage due to high CO2 can be reversed in the long term, which is one reason the IPCC goes on about "1.5C plus overshoot". They model a ~2C situation lasting less than 5 years then cooling to 1.5C over next 10-15 years as being an achievable target, more achievable than 1.5C on its own. This is expected to lead to minimal long term damage (e.g. land loss due to flooding) though there will still be negative impacts.Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pmA better question is what is the impact of doing nothing? Adapting to climate change and reducing carbon emissions is possible, even if we cannot hit net zero by 2050, if we can substantially reduce carbon emissions then it will almost certainly have a benefit. This can be done, by investing more into renewables and less into fossil fuels, better insulation in homes, carbon taxation for heavy industry, forcing aviation to use synfuels, and so on. The cost of no action is significant: large crop failures, extreme weather, flooding, positive feedback loops (some of which may not be reversible.)Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pmNo, every petrol vehicle made after 2004 can be used in the expanded ULEZ zone. Only diesels made before 2015 may not comply. These vehicles can be adapted, by adding an SCR system, and this is done for some heavier vehicles but the majority of these polluting diesels will just leave London and go elsewhere in the country. They aren't being scrapped, they're just not being used in London any more.ULEZ is a good idea: London has dense traffic levels, with roads built for much smaller levels of traffic passing directly outside people's homes. It is estimated that the air pollution in London kills upwards of 7,000 per year directly, and roughly 7% of all childhood asthma events are directly triggered by high air pollution. There are notably higher rates of childhood asthma in general in London and other big cities (in other words, you are more likely to develop it as a child if you live in London).Quote from: IanB on August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pmAgreed, it is a problem to solve so that the adaptation to climate change and air pollution doesn't impact the poorest. It is a difficult problem to solve for sure. However I'd argue that the health harms of allowing these vehicles to operate outweighs being able to own a polluting vehicle, and cheap second-hand alternatives are available, as well as a scrappage scheme that might help a bit, but it's going to need to increase if a ULEZ-like scheme applies to the rest of the country eventually (it's only a matter of time in my opinion).

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 07:25:08 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on August 10, 2023, 06:39:54 pmDid you check all the names, read their work? Do you really think a noble Prize nominee would make a statement so lightly?Would you be an expert reviewer with the context displayed in red if you think the wrong turn is choosen?

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2023, 08:11:35 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 10, 2023, 07:25:08 pmSo what if they are Nobel prize nominees, that doesn't give them a free pass. They still have to back up what they claim with evidence. Merely signing a petition only shows what someone's opinion is. It does not represent scientifically relevant evidence.I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the context displayed in red, which refers to review editors. I was talking about expert reviewers.I wonder how many of those 1500 names appear among the list ofExpert Reviewers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. If their names don't appear, then why not? Too busy perhaps, or not suitably qualified, or couldn't be bothered, or perhaps they knew that they didn't have credible supporting evidence.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2023, 12:51:23 pm
content: Quote from: cbutlera on August 10, 2023, 08:11:35 pmAgreed no free pass, but they are less likely to sign this petition if they don't have info that corroborates their claim, the scientific community can be harsh.Quote from: cbutlera on August 10, 2023, 08:11:35 pm.The expert reviewers haveno sayin the outline of the report and thereview editors (not the expert reviewers)advise the lead editors if there is a controversial issue.If I was an expert reviewer with a somewhat controversial opinion I would like to state my opinion in full, not via the review editors.Quote from: cbutlera on August 10, 2023, 08:11:35 pmWell, if you have some time, you can do a crosscheck on both documents.For the situation in the Netherlands one -not a scientist- stated: from all the 140 people in the Netherlands 140 where male, A totally unimportant statement.He also argued that only 3 signees are still working, one is dead, and the others have a pension. That could be a reason: free of ties from their employer, they feel the freedom to speak up.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2023, 10:46:06 pm
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 11, 2023, 12:51:23 pmIf the dead one could speak up, that is a much more earth-shattering event than any difference of opinion on climate science

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:09:09 am
content: Quote from: RAPo on August 11, 2023, 12:51:23 pmYou can't possibly expect every unfiltered comment from every expert reviewer to appear in the final assessment reports. The comments they make still go on to the record and are available on request. There is also nothing to stop them from being published independently.Quote from: RAPo on August 11, 2023, 12:51:23 pmThere are plenty of climate scientists working for fossil fuel companies or AGW sceptical lobbying organisations who wouldn't be fearing for their jobs for expressing AGW sceptical opinions. There are a number of scientists who are already well known as AGW sceptics so would have nothing to fear either. I searched for a couple of dozen of the names from theCO2 Coalitionwebsite (which this thread was supposed to be about) before I got bored, but I found none that were listed as expert reviewers. Why do so many of these AGW sceptics choose not to engage with the IPCC report process, but then spend so much time loudly complaining that the IPCC reports do not represent the current scientific consensus? I think the answer is obvious.Edit: Fixed spelling error.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:17:07 am
content: Please stop conflating 'skeptics' with actual peer reviewed 'Scientists' they are nothing like equivalent and just because you have an opposing view doesn't get you some sort of free ticket onto an expert review anything!The answer is indeed 'obvious'

author: cbutlera
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:41:52 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 12:17:07 amYou are right I missed out one word, I should have said AGW sceptical scientists in my last sentence rather than just AGW sceptics. The word sceptic in the context of AGW impliesscientific scepticism, but there is no doubt that some of those who claim this title are in factpseudosceptics, so the clarification is useful.When the IPCC calls for expert reviewers, anyone who has a suitable qualification can register. Here is an archived copy of the onlineregistration form. The form ends with a self declaration of that suitable qualification. The barrier to participation doesn't look insurmountable to me.Edit: added sentence on pseudoscepticism.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am
content: What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed. Demanding or ambit claims that the other person is wrong 'for reasons' is complete

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:08:46 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 amScience is founded on skepticism. Science is not a thing, its a process, and constant skepticism is a critically important part of that process. All knowledge is contingent, and needs to be constantly doubted and reevaluated. We never have a whole picture. Advancement occurs when we realise that and keep questioning to tease out more of how the world works.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:29:07 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeQuoteIf you believe that practically 100% of scientists can agree on anything then I've got a bridge to sell you. Let alone a topic as vastly complex as the climate.Now, I'm not saying it's not true, that's not my point at all, we certainly do seem have some sort of impact, and it's very possible that we are the main cause of it. But it's very clear that there is not only vested interests at stake here, but vast pressure on scientists to, let's say, not rock the boat here. We saw thisin spadesplain as day during covid, and to think it can't happen here would be foolish. Quite a few scientists in the field have actually admitted it happens.Fear is the biggest human persudader and motivator, faer of losing your job, fear of losing or not getting funding, fear of losing your reputation etc.Name another complex scientific field like this where practically 100% agree, it never happens. yet we are supposed to think that practically 100% agree on this?Something doesn't smell right...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:36:52 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 amThen in the very next sentence:QuoteThat's called beingskepticalof their resultsIt's a natural part of the process. You may not call it skepticism, but that's basically what it is. It may be because you happen to already have data that proves otherwise, but (most?) often it's you thinking "Hmm, this doesn't sound right...", a gut feeling, a hunch, hairs on the back your neck, you smell something fishy etc etc. So your inherent questioning/skepticism of those result leads you to do your own further research.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 12, 2023, 11:36:52 amHow about YOU go look at a definition of the word! It broadly means to 'doubt the 'truth'. It is one step up from some conspiracy nutter with no qualifications in a field making an ambit claim. All to often a negative conclusion is offered up and then someone will try and fake or massage the results to make that conclusion their truth. Again NOT SCIENCE.Questioning the truth as I stated several posts back is fine and I have zero issues with that but you sure as hell need to be able to back it up with hard fact and evidence and this is in this case Science.This is where this debate and other like it goes off the rails because of demands that 'my truth' is more powerful than actual Science which remains

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:52:03 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 amEr, no. The usual definition is something like "doubt as to the truth of something". You got it backwards.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:56:10 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 11:49:57 amIf you are debating the exact meaing of a word then you have automatically lost the argument. You know very well what I mean.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:58:41 am
content: There is a difference:Scepticism is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.This can be an attitude or a way of life.There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it can be healthy for progress in science.This thread seems more about science denial, as the image below indicates.That image can be applied to both "climate change is induced by (primarily) humans" believers and "climate change is there but not necessarily due to humans (alone)" arguments.Do the research, don't follow blindly sweeping statements.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:04:22 pm
content: And its usage here has been used by posters on multiple occasions as 'definitive proof' of a negative without evidence because of a random web link or someone wrote it down so it must be true.We don't accept 'free energy' without question because someone rattles off gibberish maths and shows a suspect device so why should we accept non Science here as a 'truth' over what is published and broadly accepted?

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:07:00 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 12:04:22 pmBecause there are more than only arguments. Human behaviour, invested interests, money, common opinion is not always true, silencing unwelcome ideas/facts.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:13:48 pm
content: Which is why I raised the question of Judith Curry's views a while back.'silencing unwelcome ideas/facts' is conspiracy 101 for the negative case and what a huge segment of so called News pushes as 'truth' or 'alternate facts'.I have no issue with a debate but it needs to be on Scientific merits and a whole lot less of the

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:35:34 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 12:13:48 pmNope, for the "positive" case there is awebsitethat shows different.And for the negative case, there is adutch news sitethat does not allow allow climate denial within the response section, regardless the arguments.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:36:52 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 12:13:48 pmMost things that are broadly accepted reality now were once considered BS. How do you move the real from BS to any higher level of "merit" if you suppress things that don't have that merit today? BS is something we should live with, and filter at a personal level, not a societal level.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 12:38:28 pm
content: But there is no debate, as stated by Dr. Judith Curry. Only research confirming climate concerns is rewarded; journals decline to publish articles that do not align with certain political viewpoints, and scientists are hesitant to voice their opinions due to potential career repercussions.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 01:16:10 pm
content: Alright, let's assume the new "climate change" religion is correct: humanity is on a path towards hell (literally - take a look at Venus). The Greens are our saviors, and people must abstain from certain activities, like stop burning fossil fuels, to be saved.The top four CO2 emitters globally are China, the US, India, and Russia. The US is moving in a positive direction; for instance, soon, gas stoves won't be available, so wood-burning stoves might see a resurgence, particularly among lower-income individuals. After all, firewood is a renewable resource.However, the biggest concern isn't just CO2 emissions from developed world. The real issue is the elephant in the room: China. China's CO2 emissions exceed the combined emissions of the US, EU, and Japan. Additionally, there's India and Russia to consider.Here is the question: how can our "climate change" preachers persuade Russia, India, and China to halt their harmful actions? Going to war is not a viable option I guess. I'm genuinely curious.

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 01:56:46 pm
content: The main reason China is on the top in CO2 emissions is because they produce most products we consume.If western countries would have kept their factories locally, then western countries would have much higher CO2 emissions and China, in consequence, would have less.I already said it in the beginning of this thread:1) The main "environmental problem" is due to human over population. We need to go back to being 2.000.000.000 people on earth, instead of striving to reach 10.000.000.000, soon.2) The "clima change" is harmfull to us humans and our living standard. We might die out, but the planet will continue to exist and life on earth will continue. Remember what happend to the dinosaurs: a global clima change, caused by a meteorite, whiped out a whole species. So what? They were replaced by a new species.3) In order to restrain human caused pollution, one has to accept that there is a price. Take for instance an MRI machine in a hospital. This machine relies on technology and components, manufactured all over the globe. It requires all sorts of elements, manufacturing processes, etc. If we want to eliminate pollution, then we need to eliminate global transportation (ships are enormous pollutors), we need to elimitae the extraction of elements like rare earth metals, gases, etc. We need to eliminate most of our industry. Also, we would need to increase the life expectancy of our products: no new mobile phone every two years - it needs to last 20 years! The same with the TV or the car. But doing so would mean that all these products need to be much more expensive, because they would be less production and demand.Let's face it: nothing will change, we will at some point in time reach a new global war or pendemic, which will drastically reduce human kind. From there on, a new cycle will start.All the rest is just made up taxes to get more money for questionable things.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 02:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: Bicurico on August 12, 2023, 01:56:46 pmDumping CO2still makes for cheaper electricity than net zero nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geo' and hydro' ever will.One question guys: Why are we still having this conversation decades after the drive towards green energy began? Climate hysteria aside, the west was greening energy production long before globalisation. Yet we still have managed to increase our dependency on fossil fuels? Even my cleaner and greener UK has licensed new oil, gas and coal exploration and exploitation licenses under the fake pretence of energy security. Politicians might act as if they listen to the science, but really they just act on who has the most money to pull their strings. So it is no irony that the next COP climate junket this November will be hosted against the oil tycoon's skyline of Dubai. Which is why this quote kind of makes sense when considering the billions of dollars of snake oil that the climate industry rubs on itself every year. "Finding a solution to climate change is not the problem. The problem is if we find a solution to climate change." The inconvienient climate truth is your children will still be having this conversation in decades to come.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 02:39:45 pm
content: Quote from: WiktionaryPoints 2., 3., and 4. also apply directly to all scientific methods.A trustworthy scientist knows that they have to work based on the best current understanding –– best meaning the one that has withstood tests and comparisons to real-world measurements the most –– and that it is not necessarily correct. Theybelievein some things, but they also recognize that that belief itself is just a human tool, something to make it easier for them to handle the fact that theyknow nothing for sure.Indeed, one fun to work with faction of trustworthy scientists can be classified as diligent optimistic skeptics, who don't mind generalising and approximating things when there is real world utility in that.Climate science is a bitch.Researchers do not even agree to the underlying data sets. Any measurement over a hundred years old is subject to "adjustment", often meaning the known measurements are replaced by running some model in reverse, so that it reproduces some initial (latest) best guesses what the measurements would have been if they were done "properly"; then the actual measurements are replaced with the simulated values. Some measurements are ignored completely, because the researchers "do not believe in them", often because they can't get their models to reproduce such measurements at all.Very few researchers understand the limitations of their models and simulations. Many are near-chaotic, such that small changes produce only small changes in short simulations, but above a certain limit, changes produce completely unpredictable results. That limit decreases the longer the simulation is.Nobody agrees to the combined effects of insolation (solar output), composition of upper atmosphere (H2O and CO2 being the largest absorbers of sunlight spectrum, but stuff like ash – acting as kernels for water droplets – changing the picture completely), cloud reflection at lower atmosphere (aeroplane contrails and even large cargo ship exhaust) combined with seasonal winds, and so on. You cannot even do serious research on that, because whatever your findings are, thosebelievingotherwise will attack you with likely very deep pockets behind them (because all sides of the climate discussion are backed by deep pockets: many political, some industrial).None of it is reliable. All stages have pokeable holes in them. Any claim –– and I do meanany, from purely anthropogenic causation to fully anthropogenic causation, and all variants in between and outside –– can be shown to have a significant basis on arbitrarily selected data (choose the data to get the results you want) or poorly understood models and their initial parameters. Even meta-studies (looking at findings of existing studies) suffer from this.Plus, historically, whenever the majority of scientists have agreed on something –– achieving the consensus some seem to be so desperate for –– they have turned out to be wrong within the next hundred years or so.Basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of. I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway. Youcannotfind the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 02:44:41 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 12, 2023, 02:39:45 pmAnd that's why we better call it climate beliefs. Everyone is entitled to her/his own beliefs, but comparing it to science (like the beta, philosophy and alpha sciences) is comparing apples and oranges

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 03:00:30 pm
content: It's also not the only field to be utterly fucked. Human nutrition is another: sugars, fats, salts, artificial sweeteners, highly-refined ingredients like hydrogenated fats and modified starches... it is pretty certain (from observing the results) that the most accurate models will be very, very different than what we believe about this now; and similarly, any nutritional recommendations not stemming from social, financial, political, and industry interests, and centered on individual health and well-being, would be utterly different to what we currently have. (But it is near impossible to scientifically discover what that would be, because the entire field is so full of shit and no truly reliable data is available.)

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pm
content: What fascinates me is that otherwise intelligent people will take on ideas based on faulty logic when it comes to global warming.They seem to have some very serious vested interest in it being false. I agree it sure would be nice if we didn't have anything to worry about but it isn't the case.So are these illogical conclusions based on sheer unconscious fear or on a semi conscious understanding of the financial ramifications to their own livelihood.Or could it be based in religious mindset. If you believe in a grand protector who won't let us harm ourselves then the whole issue seems irrelevant to them. But to admit religious motivation in an opinion is to draw fire for lack of reason.The logical fallaciesBelieving that others who are skeptical and voice doubt are in some way proof that doubt is valid. There is nothing in untrained opinions that add anything to the discussion about the validity of the science.Fallacy of composition. Some isolated piece of data proves CO2 warming incorrect. We had a cold winter in Georgia for example.And my personal favorite. "Climate is always changing". I just have no idea what relevance this kind of statement brings. Don't even know how that helps the cause of a denier."We can't stop it anyhow" Absolutely true given human nature. But I refuse to be such a coward as to hide the fact that we are shi**ing up our own house toward it's eventual destruction."BB other countries won't lower emission so why should we" Well if the most prosperous country in the world will not go first in reducing emissions then how can we expect poorer countries to self regulate."We can't deny developing countries the right to industrialize". And we should not. They can use fossil fuel to better their standard of living without jumping into wasteful entertainment consumption.Eh there are more but that probably enough

author: RAPo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 05:38:28 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmthat is not a fallacy, mutatis mutandis it is also true for the climate believers: " we are with many so we must be right"Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmIn this isolated form yes, but the statement of climate believers: " today is the hottest month on record so the earth is warming up" is of the same order.Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmWell, the climate is always changing so the statement from climate believers is a tautology. A tautology is no reason for being just.Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmIf it is true why spend this enormous amount of money and do we need the fear-mongering?It is for instance pride to say the climate measures taken in the Netherlands are working to lower the global temperature by 0.0037C, not science.Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmMaybe does the term economy ring a bell?One day after the above Dutch-mentioned measure was made public, China opened another coal mine. Guess what: no extra measures were taken by the government so the statement is nullifiedQuote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmAnfrom Peterson shows that this is a questionable statement.Well, couldn't the rich countries finance some extra nuclear plants and give the developing country the needed energy for free? It would imho be a better way to spend the climate billions.Is the real question not "how do we de-industralize/de consume/ cut down the rich countries?

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 06:55:33 pm
content: RAPoThe only arguments I am making is for accepting the truth. Not stretching to the end of the Earth for weak arguments to deny what is accepted science.Yes the economics of it are a mess. We will never undertake the pain to limit emissions. Lets just accept that we have set our house on fire and are unwilling to put it out.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 07:02:17 pm
content: Amen bro, you've got what you wanted when starting this clickbait thread, rag chewing has been going for 13 pages.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 07:18:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 12, 2023, 11:29:07 amCosmology? Perpetual motion/free energy?You might say that there isn't 100% agreement with the free energy thing and point to Youtube as evidence, but the thing you quoted says "Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists" and I think we can agree that the Youtube freetards are not scientists. They're also not published (AFAIK Youtube is not 'publishing' in the science sense).

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 07:37:05 pm
content: China already out-pollutes Finlandper capita. Even if all Finns were to commit suicide to try and save the rest of the world (which seems to be the political plan here), all that would change is the Chinese Communist Party would just up their estimate of the point where anthropogenic changes' costs outweigh the benefits of not curbing pollution, by 0.3%.You won't be able to convince the CCP otherwise; their track record is clear. They also have the firepower to protect themselves against attempts at forcible change-of-mind. And USA is no better than that, at all; just more willing to use their war machine to try and force others to bend to their will.The superrrich already have their exit plans ready, having obtained large plots of land they intend to keep anyone else off of.Thus, either we're royally fucked, or we invent some technology that makes it worthwhile for the polluters to reduce their emissions, and some technology to compensate for the effects of whatever large-scale changes in the climate we end up with. And just deal with the increasingly large flows of people from developing countries to Western countries.All this "you individual humans need to stop eating meat and using electricity so that we can save the planet" talk is bullshit, as it will not solve anything.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 08:36:05 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 12, 2023, 07:37:05 pmAnd who exactly put China in that position ?Western multinational greed without a care in the world for their local employees shifted lots of production there for just one reason, the $ $ $

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 10:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on August 12, 2023, 07:02:17 pmyou have posted 7 times in this thread. Why don't you protest by ignoring it.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 10:50:51 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on August 12, 2023, 08:36:05 pmYep. I'm not blaming China for the situation, I'm just saying that this is where we are right now, and changing CCP's mind, to get them to voluntarily forgo economic growth for the betterment of the rest of the planet, isn't going to fly. It isn't flying with the USA, either. I have no idea what EU really thinks it'll achieve with its Green Deal plan, but thus far it looks like more poverty and more dependence on the government assistance for living and less local food production. And I'm not blaming those from third world countries wanting to come to EU, either: so would I, if I was in their shoes.Blame, really, is pretty useless right now. Scaring people out of their wits with the threat of nuclear war or Red Menace during the cold war didn't help any ordinary people either, so doing the same thing now with the climate scare is just as stupid as that was then. Like I said, either we're fucked, or we'll invent our way out of this.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2023, 11:36:07 pm
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 12, 2023, 05:12:08 pmThe reverse is also demonstrably true.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2023, 01:21:28 am
content: @OP get a girlfriend. You will quickly discover global warming becoming the least of your worries.Also will save this forum some bandwidth wich can be used for useful topics.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2023, 02:55:24 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 13, 2023, 01:21:28 amI have the impression that if anything, the girls are more likely to care about sustainability than the guys do.

author: snarkysparky
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2023, 03:53:12 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 13, 2023, 01:21:28 amyou sound like a dumb redneck.Are ya ?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2023, 07:57:46 am
content: Quote from: snarkysparky on August 13, 2023, 03:53:12 amThis thread it done. Locked.