Climate Change is not real!

[Crni Vuk]

Domt worry i will pick up again hahaha. First

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction

Bam, how to rebuild ecosystems.

I fully think that technology is our only answer. We are not completely fucked yet. It will take a long time to get there and besides how we are currently fucking up our planet will teach us how to terraform mars hahaha. Joking aside, carbon capture technology will help us reverse course. The Canadian pil patch was at one time helping to fund this technology, but we then got a progressive new government who decided light bulb rebates and new taxes would somehow do better for the enviroment. Then they reduced funding for this technology and with the added new taxes, pipeline bottlenecks due to enviromental protestors, and global slump of oil prices the oil patchs funding has also been drastically reduced. Go enviromentalist yeah. See where i get my jaded view on this from. Big oil buisness funding green technology, until enviromentalist fuck up there buisness ending up reducing the fu ding for green funds.

Unfortunatly some things will have to get worse before they get better for us but arguing that its big buisness wants to kill the enviroment for profit is stupid from what i see, its more like profit needs to be made to fund the research that will save us all. Government funding does not just come from nowhere no matter what governmemt is in charge.

Gonzo I am sure there exist "ideas" how you could get a certain species back ... but recreating a whole ecosystem is right now as feasible like cities on Mars.

Unfortunatly some things will have to get worse before they get better for us but arguing that its big buisness wants to kill the enviroment for profit is stupid from what i see, its more like profit needs to be made to fund the research that will save us all. Government funding does not just come from nowhere no matter what governmemt is in charge.

Why not avoid the issue in the first place by ... making a bit less business?

You're telling me right now there is no need to stop smoking because maybe some day eventually they will find a possible solution to cure all kinds of cancer.

But why take the risk? Better stop smoking now look at your health hand avoid the issue all together. That's what I am saying. There are way to many risks involved. What if those technologies come to late? Or never? What if we destroy our self in a nuclear war due to increasing tensions and global instability?

Prevention is ALWAYS(!) cheaper compared to dealing with the consequences. ​

 

[GonZo_626]

Gonzo I am sure there exist "ideas" how you could get a certain species back ... but recreating a whole ecosystem is right now as feasible like cities on Mars.

Why not avoid the issue in the first place by ... making a bit less business?

You're telling me right now there is no need to stop smoking because maybe some day eventually they will find a possible solution to cure all kinds of cancer.

But why take the risk? Better stop smoking now look at your health hand avoid the issue all together. That's what I am saying. There are way to many risks involved. What if those technologies come to late? Or never? What if we destroy our self in a nuclear war due to increasing tensions and global instability?

Prevention is ALWAYS(!) cheaper compared to dealing with the consequences. ​

Oh this is an easy answer especially using your same example of smoking. You do realize that quitting cold turkey holds an extremely high failure rate? Its not just the addiction either its the habit itself, smokers still reach for those smokes that are not there while doing something like driving. Reduction methods (cutting back until done) suck and almost always fail. And while not stopping the habit, things that replace the addiction are tending to work (vaping). So in other words finding a way to replace the harmful with something less harmful while not changing the habit has a good chance of working.

Almost ever county wants to quit pollution like most people want to stop smoking, and then reality hits and those who want to stop find the pain of it to much even if it will kill them in the long run.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Everything is fine, nothing to worry about :


In 45 years, we have killed 60% of Earth’s wildlife
A damning report by WWF puts the worsening condition of Planet Earth into perspective

Humans have been around for more than 2 million years. But in the last 44 years, we have achieved what we haven’t in all this while: a mass annihilation of our fellow earthlings. Between 1970 and 2014, Earth lost nearly 60% decline of its mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, almost all of it due to human activity. The rate at which Earth is losing its biodiversity is comparable only to the mass extinctions. This and other findings have been published by the World Wildlife Fund in its Living Planet Report 2018, a stinging reminder of the declining health of the planet.
https://www.cntraveller.in/story/45...1SbMWsAnClP-m3y2D61pfRtFKW7aPU_IAfr6NGDxDQMXw

 

[Walpknut]

Why worry about Climate change when we will be facing Fallout Hurricanes in a couple of months?

 

[Hassknecht]

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X
I find this quite interesting. Wind energy has a local warming effect due to layer intermixing and reduction of wind speeds, that much is obvious. They found that if one were to use purely wind energy for power production in the US, there'd be more warming due to wind energy than what would be saved from decarbonisation.

The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind.

Now the US has 27 times the size of Germany, but only four times the power demands.
So you'd roughly build six times the wind power plants per area in Germany to get there. So you'd get an increased warming effect, and given the high fraction of wind power we already use, it might actually be quite significant. I think I need to study this in more detail. Wind power plants over time, temperature measurement stations and their measured values, soil dryness and droughts... Probably have to take prevalent wind directions into account, too, and the relatively long turbulent wind areas windparks create.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044024/pdf
Here's a similar paper about windfarms in Scotland. They also found nighttime temperature increases near windfarms, and increased absolute humidity.
Quite interesting. Certainly more reason why I don't fully trust simple local average temperature measurements for creating panic.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Good thing that temperatures are not only measured in urban environments or near wind parks but actually all over the world including satellite images from NASA. I mean for fucks sake the arctic is melting 3 times as fast like predicted and we experience some of the worst forest fires in recent decades all over the world.

 

[Hassknecht]

Good thing that temperatures are not only measured in urban environments or near wind parks but actually all over the world including satellite images from NASA. I mean for fucks sake the arctic is melting 3 times as fast like predicted and we experience some of the worst forest fires in recent decades all over the world.

All quite unrelated to my point, really.
Temperatures are measured all over the place, and ground stations have massive variations and systematic errors. Satellite measurements, too, I might add, since optical temperature measurements are not as straight forward as you might think.
Yet again, I'm not denying climate change. I'm sceptical of using various temperature measurements to create panic and acceptance for policymaking. I'm also more and more sceptical of CO2 having the effect it's supposed to have; the warming and global effects of change are there, but the effect of CO2 seems to be overestimated due to insufficient computer models. As per the article I posted some time ago, the IPCC models don't include cloud coverage and formation, and have to massively overestimate certain anthropogenic effects (i.e. CO2 concentration) to fit to the data. They then extrapolate with this model and come to the conclusion that CO2 is the devil, when "CO2 is the devil" is a questionable input to their model in the first place.
But why is CO2 then put into the forefront so much, why is it the most important thing ever to reduce according to politics and media? Because it's the easiest and most obvious to put on the common people per law and policy. Almost everything else requires massive government investments and changes, but CO2? That's stuff you can put a tax on and fill your pockets with. It's where you can creep in control mechanisms and enforce ascesis without actually having to do anything.
With all the blustering of the german Energiewende, what has it done? Our CO2 emissions are stagnating, our grid is getting unstable, and nothing is getting done about it except media campaigns telling the common people that they should all be a little poorer.
I'm all for massive government investments and interventions, you know. But make it for stuff that actually works, not stuff that looks good on paper if you squint enough.
On the other hand, Germany has now shown more than enough that it is incapable of handling any large scale infrastructure construction any more, so whatever. I'm bunkering whisky for the fun times ahead.

 

[Crni Vuk]

All quite unrelated to my point, really.
Temperatures are measured all over the place, and ground stations have massive variations and systematic errors. Satellite measurements, too, I might add, since optical temperature measurements are not as straight forward as you might think.

So all the scientists working here are idiots or something? Or they don't know their craft? I am not sure what your point is here or what your conclusions are. Because what you're saying is that NASA and other institutions with the sole purpose of performing research in those areas are not doing their job correctly. We are also talking about people performing research in the arctic, the oceans, weather balloons all sorts of things.

If you think there is something wrong here why don't you release your own paper and see what happens?

Yet again, I'm not denying climate change. I'm sceptical of using various temperature measurements to create panic and acceptance for policymaking. I'm also more and more sceptical of CO2 having the effect it's supposed to have; the warming and global effects of change are there, but the effect of CO2 seems to be overestimated due to insufficient computer models. As per the article I posted some time ago, the IPCC models don't include cloud coverage and formation, and have to massively overestimate certain anthropogenic effects (i.e. CO2 concentration) to fit to the data. They then extrapolate with this model and come to the conclusion that CO2 is the devil, when "CO2 is the devil" is a questionable input to their model in the first place.
But why is CO2 then put into the forefront so much, why is it the most important thing ever to reduce according to politics and media? Because it's the easiest and most obvious to put on the common people per law and policy. Almost everything else requires massive government investments and changes, but CO2? That's stuff you can put a tax on and fill your pockets with. It's where you can creep in control mechanisms and enforce ascesis without actually having to do anything.

And I am telling you here and again that temperature is not the only clue here. Even if we completely ignore temperature we have thousands of other clues which tell us that something is very wrong with our climate and that human activity is most likely the cause.

Let us take only bio diversity this has nothing to do with Co2. More than 1 million species are on the verge of extinction or already extinct. We are right now at the beginning of the next mass extinction. The pollution of the oceans. The number of micro plastic in almost everything and so on. About I think 60% of the earth is used for agriculture, most of it to feed farm animals not even people. And it's increasing. We can observe live the largest forest fires we have ever seen in Brazil, Africa and Siberia. What's Trumps answer to this issue?
​

President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to open Alaska’s 16.7 million-acre Tongass National Forest — the planet’s largest intact temperate rainforest — to logging and other corporate development projects, a move that comes as thousands of fires are ripping through the Amazon rainforest and putting the “lungs of the world” in grave danger.​

Awesome! We see the same happening right now in eastern Europe where they want to open up some of the oldest forests for logging. And some already dream about the mining operations that can be done in Greenland and the arctic ...

We really are fucked.

​

With all the blustering of the german Energiewende, what has it done? Our CO2 emissions are stagnating, our grid is getting unstable, and nothing is getting done about it except media campaigns telling the common people that they should all be a little poorer.
I'm all for massive government investments and interventions, you know. But make it for stuff that actually works, not stuff that looks good on paper if you squint enough.
On the other hand, Germany has now shown more than enough that it is incapable of handling any large scale infrastructure construction any more, so whatever. I'm bunkering whisky for the fun times ahead.

See that's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Hassknecht]

*sigh*
If you could get your head out of your goddamn arse for a second, I'm not arguing against climage change or anthropogenic climate change. I'm arguing against using certain temperature measurements as evidence for it. There is enough other stuff to go on, but it's less easily understandable and less easy to exploit for creating fear.
Don't make me explain this again. I am not arguing against climate change. I am arguing against the medial exploitation of it.
And I'm not saying NASA isn't doing their job correctly, I'm saying that their measurements are exploited and misrepresented. Ever see error bars or discussions of them in pop media articles? No, you don't.
Also, yeah, NASA is exploiting themselves. Global average temperature went up 1.8°F since 1880? What a load of shit. Using Fahrenheit to begin with, but the general measurement systematics since then are extremely unreliable. I'm sorry, but this value is bullshit. An honest error value on that is likely five times as large. It says nothing. And having only CO2 as a correlation and implied causality is also stupid.

 

[Crni Vuk]

*sigh*
If you could get your head out of your goddamn arse for a second, I'm not arguing against climage change or anthropogenic climate change. I'm arguing against using certain temperature measurements as evidence for it.

*Sigh*

And I am telling you it's not important considering the ISSUE(!) at hand. I get you. I really do. And this is neither old nor very shocking knowledge. Some measurements are not very accurate. Ok? What now?

I'm arguing against using certain temperature measurements as evidence for it

That's why I am telling you - and I am repeating my self here - they are not just taking temperature as clue here and not just the temperature of one area I mean this fact isn't going to change underlying principles we're talking about ...



This is the problem I have right now with your kind of thinking :

Scientist discover possible habitable planets in our galaxy and gravitational waves.
- The likes of Hassknechts out there : Cool! Science Bitch!

Scientists discover that we fuck up our planet.
- Also Hassknechts out there : Wait a moment! This can't be correct.

How can one scientific field be true while the other one incorrect? I do understand that we're dealing with a very complex topic here. But you also have to remember that some very good scientists are working in those fields. For the last 60 years.

I am arguing against the medial exploitation of it.

OK! I get you. I got you the first time. But realize that this is NOT(!) what I am talking about. I am also talking about the destruction we cause without Co2 emissions. Even if we completely ignore the issues of the global temperature we still have to deal with the habitat loos of animals, the destruction of the largest rainforests on this planet, the desertification that's happening, the overfishing, overmining, and so on. I am talking about the big picture here. What we do on a global scale as a species. anthropogenic climate change is just one piece of it.

And having only CO2 as a correlation and implied causality is also stupid.

Are you a climate scientist? Is this your field of expertise? have you actually studied the scientific papers published on that subject? Have you published your own papers in it? Are you at the forefront of the research? What are you're sources? If the causality between Co2 is not correct then what is the cause?
Can you back up anything of what you say and link me to your sources?

What do you get that those people do not :



I really want to know.

I do not mean this as provocation. But you said you studied physics and you're now doing mostly the work of an engineer. How close are you in that particular subject? Because the number of scientists which actually work in that field worldwide which give out clear warnings that we're facing a global disaster is staggering.

 

[Hassknecht]

*Sigh*

And I am telling you it's not important considering the ISSUE(!) at hand. I get you. I really do. And this is neither old nor very shocking knowledge. Some measurements are not very accurate. Ok? What now?

It is important because it forms the basis of the solutions that are being considered.

That's why I am telling you - and I am repeating my self here - they are not just taking temperature as clue here and not just the temperature of one area...

Again. Not the point. I'm not denying climate change, no matter how often you try to make it out like I am. I'm criticising its handling. Dishonesty isn't helping anyone. Barking up the wrong tree shifts the blame and enables wrong policy.

This is the problem I have right now with your kind of thinking :

Scientist discover possible habitable planets in our galaxy and gravitational waves.
- The likes of Hassknechts out there : Cool! Science Bitch!

Scientists discover that we fuck up our planet.
- Also Hassknechts out there : Wait a moment! This can't be correct.

How can one scientific field be true while the other one incorrect? I do understand that we're dealing with a very complex topic here. But you also have to remember that some very good scientists are working in those fields. For the last 60 years.

See above. Not doing that. It's not the scientists and science per se being wrong, but a field being misrepresented and politicized. Proper scientific practice seems to be pretty hard when "BUT THE CONSENSUS" is the loudest answer. Scientific consensus is never a good answer.
Climate change is real. That's what the data shows. CO2, I'd be sceptical. The models are not very good.

OK! I get you. I got you the first time. But realize that this is NOT(!) what I am talking about. I am also talking about the destruction we cause without Co2 emissions. Even if we completely ignore the issues of the global temperature we still have to deal with the habitat loos of animals, the destruction of the largest rainforests on this planet, the desertification that's happening, the overfishing, overmining, and so on. I am talking about the big picture here. What we do on a global scale as a species. anthropogenic climate change is just one piece of it.

Exactly my point. The overall environmental destruction has a large effect, but the big topic is always CO2. Why? Because that one can be "fixed" by exerting control over the population. By simply making smoke and mirror laws and policies the governments can pretend that they're doing something, when they're not actually doing anything.

Are you a climate scientist? Is this your field of expertise? have you actually studied the scientific papers published on that subject? Have you published your own papers in it? Are you at the forefront of the research? What are you're sources? If the causality between Co2 is not correct then what is the cause?
Can you back up anything of what you say and link me to your sources?

What do you get that those people do not :



I really want to know.

I do not mean this as provocation. But you said you studied physics and you're now doing mostly the work of an engineer. How close are you in that particular subject? Because the number of scientists which actually work in that field worldwide which give out clear warnings that we're facing a global disaster is staggering.

I have a Master's Degree in physics and years of experience in scientific and engineering work, yes. I'm not a climate scientist, but the fundamentals of scientific practice are the same. I have studied quite a few papers on climate change, and read the latest IPCC report on their climate models. They say themselves that they don't model cloud coverage, because it's hard. Given the immense impact of cloud coverage it is not exactly hard to see the connection. The effect of CO2 in their models is overestimated because of that.
Again, not really too bad, but it's used as basis for policies that do nothing.
It's a diversion, that's my problem with this. And the consensus can't be trusted anymore. No scientific consensus on such a complex topic should ever be trusted, of course, but the ferocity which with dissent is persecuted is not alleviating my scepticism. Let's be clear here, CO2 does contribute to climate change, but the greenhouse effect and CO2 sensitivity might be overestimated due to lack of proper modelling.
My issue, again, is that incomplete models and predictions are used to justify policy that is basically doing nothing, instead of actually getting shit done.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well considering the fact that we don't even really implement the policies that you see as wrong - I mean see Brazil - I would say that's hardly much of a concern. The resistance particularly by conservatives here is very strong and they are gaining power or they are already in power.

As I said even if we completely ignored climate change we would still not get any of the policies done that you see as correct.


So yeah stockpiling on whiskey is a good idea.

*Edit

It's happening. And earlier than predicted. Carlos Nobre and Donato Nobre both researchers in Brasil say the eastern Region of the Amazon forest can't be saved anymore. Carlos Nobre explained in the 1970s with the deforestation and burning the ecological structure of the eastern part of the Amazonien forest will collapse in 2050. But the climate in the region has already changed so drastically in the last decades the region is not capable of keeping the ecological system up and is in the process of collapsing as it crossed the tipping point and it will become a desert in the next few decades. Current research also tells us if 25% of the rain forest is cut down it won't be capable of maintaining the eco system. Roughly 20% has been already cut down since the 1970s.

 

[valcik]

Please stop it you German faggots, will you? Spreading wildfires intentionally to create more farms is as old as first agrarian society, only the scale has changed due to lower mortality rate and much bigger population in these areas.

 

[Hassknecht]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
This is quite interesting, and I think the article is kinda circulating at the moment.
Basically, the author did an error propagation on climate models and finds that the uncertainty of the temperature change propjection in 100 years is magnitudes larger than the actual value, making the projection useless. There are some points of contention with this paper; it doesn't do an error propagation of the actual model, but rather creates a sort of emulation based on the (somewhat accurate, but simplyfing) assumption that the average temperature models are basically linear extrapolations of greenhouse gas forcing. He demonstrates well that this is fine, but I'm not 100% convinced if this isn't too simple. Either way, he then demonstrates that the long-wave cloud forcing (basically, warming/cooling effect due to cloud formation, something the current computer models don't really do well) results in a rather large annual uncertainty on the thermal energy flux that, if propagated properly through the extrapolation, results in a massive uncertainty in the end.
Climate models basically have lots of variables that are fitted to pre-industrial data under the assumption of stable climate and then only really allow for greenhouse gas forcing, while lacking all other influences. The influence of cloud formation, however, creates a huge uncertainty that is kinda swept under the rug. I think this fits with the paper I previously linked to, where researchers claimed that cloud formation is a much bigger influence than greenhouse gas forcing.
If this is accurate, Pauli would probably say that the climate models are not only not correct, they're not even wrong.
I'll analyze the paper in more detail over the weekend and try to understand it better. It's mostly error propagation so there's probably nothing wrong with it, but I think his model of the model might be too simple.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world is headed for painful problems sooner than expected, as emissions keep rising.


The impacts and costs of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of global warming will be far greater than expected, according to a comprehensive assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Sunday in Incheon, South Korea.

The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) of global warming. [See: Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year] But much of this will get substantially worse with 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, and far worse at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released Sunday and examining more than 6,000 studies.

The IPCC also reported that 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit could be reached in as little as 11 years—and almost certainly within 20 years without major cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Even if such cuts were to begin immediately it would only delay, not prevent, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ort-climate-change-impacts-forests-emissions/

7 Degrees C Global Warming within a lifetime?

There are a body of scientists and researchers that have been warning that we have crossed a multitude of tipping points and have slipped into runaway abrupt climate change.
Myself and Robin Westenra interviewed N.Z. climate scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC panel member Dr Jim Salinger in November 2015 when he stated he believes we have been in abrupt climate change since 2010 at least.
The first person to bring it to my consciousness was Professor Guy McPherson, professor emeritus of the University of Arizona. McPherson has been vilified and ostracised for speaking about the imminent extinction of the human race. “Shoot the messenger”, a time honoured response from despots to un-palliative news.
As every day passes more evidence is appearing that runaway abrupt climate change is underway and McPherson’s dire predictions based on synthesizing a multitude of positive reinforcing loops is becoming more and more impossible to refute. Please note that I spent the first 2 years after learning of McPherson’s analysis trying in vain to disprove his conclusions.
” New research suggests the Earth’s climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than thought, raising the spectre of an ‘apocalyptic side of bad’ temperature rise of more than 7C within a lifetime”, covered here in The Independent. This latest mainstream media article makes the point that we could have a 7C temperature rise within a generation, myself and Professor McPherson believe we are well into that window already.

https://kevinhester.live/2016/11/11/7-degrees-c-global-warming-in-1-generation/

Is this true?

But a report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gives a grim prognosis about reaching that goal. In an environmental impact statement published in July, the NHTSA predicts nearly twice as much warming as the maximum allowed by the Paris Agreement: about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or nearly 4 degrees Celsius.

What’s more, the NHTSA uses that extreme warming prediction as a reason to justify rolling back environmental regulations aimed at curbing emissions from cars and trucks. Essentially, the administration’s argument is that future warming will be so severe that there’s no point in doing anything to stop it.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a23516268/trump-nhtsa-global-warming-2100/

Is the Party finally over? So fucked no point in doing anything?

 

[Hassknecht]

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, true or not. The ball's rolling, either way.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We could still do something, in theory though.

 

[Hassknecht]

But nothing will be done.
Well, lots will be done, but nothing that will actually change anything about the climate.

 

[TheGM]

You know what, fuck the environment.

 

[KingArthur]

Hot (aka Emo) Take: climate change was inevitable and is a poetic apocalypse for humanity due to our utter disregard for fellow organic life and the environment. We deserve global warming and the fact that it’s getting worse only shows that there is such a thing as karma.