Climate Change

[Lost in Translation]

6 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Fred Singer is supported by fossil fuel lobbyists with a clear bias. 

 

I see. But is he wrong?

[ralis]

Just now, Lost in Translation said:

 

I see. But is he wrong?

 

Yes!

[Lost in Translation]

Here's an interview with Fred Singer from PBS. I don't see a date on it. I was only able read about half of it before my mind went numb. It's pretty boring stuff, but the man does seem sound of mind.

 

Personally, I wish people would spend their time and energy learning how to adapt to changing climate rather than trying to prevent it from changing. That seems like a much better proposition to me.

 

 

Quote

He is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most.  Some people hold that the threat of climate change is so great that we need to fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy. What's your response to this view? Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes.  The argument is that there's a new cause for climate change, which is human beings. And that the dimensions of this change might exceed what is natural or normal. Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy. Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming.  The surface record, however, continues to go up. The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites.  You've got one record that goes back 100 years, which has got imperfections in data gathering, and then you've got a much shorter record that also has questions about data gathering, the satellite record. From a statistical point of view, you get more power out of a longer record than a shorter record, don't you? A longer record, in general, will give you more statistical power, if there is a general overall trend. But, in fact, the surface record also shows a cooling. So, which part of the surface record are you going to believe? The part before 1940, that shows a warming, or the part after 1940, that shows a cooling? See, that's the dilemma.  The curve--as the climate modelers have it--has three segments. They would say there was a warming, a cooling, and a sharp warming now...they would say...on the land surface. And that's their problem. Well, since we're using models to predict the future--and the only way you can predict the future is to use models--the important question is: Can these models be validated by observations? And the models very clearly show that the climate right now should be warming at about the rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade, in the middle troposphere, that is, above the surface. But that's not what the observations show. So until the observations and the models agree, or until one or the other is resolved, it's very difficult for people--and for myself, of course--to believe in the predictive power of the current models. Now, the models are getting better. And perhaps in ten years we will have models that can be trusted, that is, that agree with actual observations.  Let's go back to the basic physical principles. People like John Tyndall did experiments in the nineteenth century, where he filled tubes with different gases and found that certain trace gases--CO2 and also gases like water vapor-- had the ability to block infrared radiation. And that basic physics suggests the natural greenhouse effect takes advantage of this, suggests that part of the reason we have the climate we have is because of that, and that if you added to it continually and for long enough, you would increase the optical thickness of these gases and, therefore, would trap more heat in the system. From that standpoint, you don't deviate, do you? There's nothing wrong with the basic physics. There's nothing wrong with laboratory physics, with measurements taken in the laboratory. They can be made very precisely, and under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is not a laboratory that you can put into a building and control. The atmosphere is much more complicated. For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide. I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. Much less. And I think it will be barely detectable. Perhaps it will be detectable, perhaps not. And it certainly will not be consequential. That is, it won't make any difference to people. After all, we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?  Well, for instance, it might increase the size of oceans through thermal expansion. So, over time, it would increase the water levels, which have been increasing naturally. There's no question that if the ocean warms, the water will expand and sea level will rise. But that's just one factor. Another factor is that mountain glaciers will tend to melt and, therefore, add water to rivers, and rivers will add the water to the ocean, and that also will produce a rise. But counterbalancing this is the fact that more water will evaporate from the ocean because it's now warmer. And this will come down as rain all over the earth. And some of the rain will come down over the Antarctic, where it will turn into ice and accumulate. Then the question is: Which is more important, the accumulation of ice --which will lower sea level because it takes water from the ocean and puts it on the ice cap--or, the other factors that raise sea level? You can't decide these questions by theory. You have to do measurements. I have now looked at the measurements and have analyzed them, and I find that the accumulation of ice is more important. And, in fact, when I look at the data from the early part of the century, when there was a strong warming--I forget what caused it, but there was a strong warming between 1900 and 1940--during the same time, sea level actually fell. So we have, you might say, an experimental verification. We have a check on the idea that accumulation of ice will be more important if there is a modest warming. Of course, if the warming is extreme, and melts all the ice caps, all bets are off. But no one is talking about that.  So, basically, the issue depends on the kinds of particular feedbacks that are operating. And the fact you've said-- it's so complicated and nonlinear--that a warming can produce a cooling, a cooling can produce a warming, all kinds of things like that can happen. But it is possible in principle to have forcings that are powerful enough to dominate. For example, there have been times in history when it's been very much warmer than now, where there's been more CO2. In principle, you can get forcings that will produce strong warming, and you get forcings that produce strong cooling. For example, a volcanic eruption produces a strong cooling. No question about this. Changes in solar radiation can produce warming or cooling, depending on which way the change is going. But the feedbacks are the most important part. And these feedbacks are not properly described by models, because we don't understand how they work. That means we have to do a great deal of physical research on the atmosphere--that is, more observations--to discover what the feedbacks are, which way they operate. Are they positive feedbacks that enhance the warming, or are they negative feedbacks that diminish the warming? And the evidence, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the negative feedbacks must be important, because we do not see the warming that's expected from the current rise in carbon dioxide.  Some people would say that we've got inertias in the system. All we're seeing are delays caused by other anthropogenic forcings we're putting into the atmosphere--like aerosols--either directly or producing clouds...or ocean lag in the system...and that actually the lack of warming isn't a cause for complacency. It's really a worry, because when it comes, it will be hard to get out of. What about that as an argument? We have to distinguish between delays, which have their cause in the heat capacity of the ocean. That's one issue. But we also must look carefully at other human activities that can produce a cooling, like the production of aerosols. How are aerosols produced? Well, one way is to burn coal and release a lot of sulphur into the atmosphere. Fortunately, now we [are] beginning to use clean coal. We're actually taking the sulphur out of the smokestacks so that the aerosol production is no longer as important. Also biomass burning, burning of forests, produces a lot of smoke and particulates in the atmosphere. Agriculture disturbs the land surface so that winds can then pick up dust. And dust in the atmosphere is another aerosol. All of these particles in the atmosphere have some effect on climate. Some will cause a cooling. Some will cause a warming. Different particles act in different ways. Depends on whether the particles are black (soot), in which case they absorb solar energy, or whether they're reflecting...whether they reflect solar energy back into space. That has to be done carefully. One of the leading climate modelists is Jim Hanson. He actually was the man who, ten years ago, went out on a limb and said he was sure the enhanced greenhouse effect was here. He now says we can't really tell. He says the forcings are so uncertain that they're much more important than the climate models. In other words, until we get the forcings straight, the climate-model predictions are not worth very much. That is basically what he said.  But there's this argument: Yes, the aerosols are there and might counteract some of the enhanced greenhouse effect. But, they will be washed out within a few days and, therefore, wouldn't continue to accumulate in the way that CO2 does. CO2stays around for 100 years. Therefore, the two things really aren't in balance. They might balance for a bit, but over a long period of time, if you go on producing CO2, this will concentrate, while the other will get washed out. And if you look ahead and project the use of fossil fuels, isn't it going to overwhelm the other forcing factors? Aerosols have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, measured typically in a matter of a week, two weeks, something like that. And then they rain out, or they fall out. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime measured in decades. Some of it survives even beyond 100 years. So if carbon dioxide effects were important, then they would eventually predominate. But the question is: Are they important in relation to the aerosol effects? Or, put it this way: Are the aerosol effects hiding the effect of carbon dioxide now? We can tell. We can find an answer to this, because we can look for fingerprints in the climate record. Since aerosols are mostly emitted in the northern hemisphere, where industrial activities are rampant, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warming less quickly than the southern hemisphere. In fact, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be cooling. But the data show the opposite. Both the surface data and the satellite data agree that, in the last 20 years, the northern hemisphere has warmed more quickly than the southern hemisphere. So it contradicts the whole idea that aerosols make an important difference. This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse.  Talk about the models. What is a computer model, and what isn't it? What is its purpose in science? There are many kinds of computer models. But the ones that people mostly talk about these days are the giant models that try to model the whole global atmosphere in a three-dimensional way. These models calculate important parameters at different points around the globe--and these points are roughly 200 miles apart--and at different levels of the atmosphere. You can see that if you only calculate temperature, winds, and so on at intervals of 200 miles, then you cannot depict clouds, or even cloud systems, which are much smaller. So until the models have a good enough resolution to be capable of depicting clouds, it's very difficult to put much faith in them.  But, still, they're playing quite an important role in this debate. Take me through a history of what the models have predicted. You've alluded to this, and how some of their predictions have had to be scaled down. What can models do, and what can't they do? You have to understand that these models are calibrated to produce the seasons. That is to say, the models are adjusted until they produce the present climate and the seasonal change.  So they're faked, you're saying? They're tweaked. I think that's a polite way of putting it. They're adjusted, or tweaked, until they produce the present climate and the present short-term variation. You have to also understand there's something like two dozen climate models in the world. And one question to ask is: Do they agree? And the answer is: They do not. And these models are all produced by excellent meteorologists, fantastic computers. Why do they not agree? Why do some models predict a warming for a doubling of CO2, of, let's say, five degrees Centigrade--which is eight degrees Fahrenheit)--and why do other models predict something like one degree? Well, there's a reason for this. These models differ in the way they depict clouds, primarily. In some models, clouds produce an additional warming. In some models, clouds produce a cooling. Which models are correct? There's no way of telling. Each modeler thinks that his model is the best. So I think we all have to wait until the dispersion in the model results shrinks a little bit--until they start to agree with each other.  What happens when you use these models to try and reproduce past climates, when other forcings are known, like ice ages and so forth? Can they succeed at that? They fail spectacularly in explaining, for example, why an ice age starts, or why an ice age stops. The most recent result on this was published in early 1999. It's always been known that, for example, the deglaciation--that is, the transition from an ice age to the warm interglacial, which is spectacular--suddenly the ice age ends and the warming starts. And at the same time, you see an increase in carbon dioxide in the record. And these are records taken from ice cores--good measurements.  They go up and down together. Well, you certainly find an association between carbon dioxide changes and temperature changes. Now, scientists have been very careful to just call it an association without identifying which is the cause and which is the effect. Politicians have been less careful. In fact, our Vice President, Al Gore, has a standard presentation where he shows the results of the Antarctic ice core (called the Vostok core), and you see changes in temperature and changes in carbon dioxide. And he points to this and says, "You see? These carbon dioxide changes caused a temperature increase in the past." Well, it's not so. In fact, in early 1999, there was a paper in Science in which they have now gotten adequate resolution so they can measure which came first, the temperature change or the carbon dioxide change. And guess what? The temperature change came first, followed by the carbon dioxide change about 600 years later. This means that something changed the temperature, not the carbon dioxide. But then as the climate warmed, more carbon dioxide apparently was released from the ocean into the atmosphere.  Which could of course, in principle, make a feedback. Yes, I would expect so. But how much of a feedback, we cannot tell. In other words, we're back again to the question of how much of a temperature increase is produced by a change in carbon dioxide.  But to go back to my question: What can the models do? Can they take an era and plug in some figures and reproduce what happens? A number of researchers have actually tried to reproduce past climates, using models. And to some extent, they've been successful. And to another extent, they have not been successful, in the sense that you cannot derive what is called the climate sensitivity. In other words, what we really are after is some way of valiating these models. We'd like to know how much of a temperature change is produced if carbon dioxide doubles in the atmosphere? That's called the climate sensitivity. What is the climate sensitivity? As I've mentioned earlier, it can range from as little as one degree in some models to as much as five degrees Centigrade, which equals eight degrees Fahrenheit, in other models. That's a big difference, a huge difference. Which of these numbers is correct, if any? You cannot just take the median or the average. There's no reason why the average should be correct. Maybe it's the high number; maybe it's the low number. We don't know. We need to find out by making observations and understanding really what happens in the atmosphere.  Some say we don't have the time for that, and that it would be prudent, since this is at least a plausible scenario, that we do something about it now, because as you said, these measurements are very difficult to take. You need to do it over a long period of time and very accurately. It might take fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years. Should we do nothing until that point? Well, the question is what you mean by "doing" something. I'm not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We're being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We're being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it. For what? All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed by all of the countries that have to observe it--by the year 2050, --about 50 years from now--it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable. So this is what you are being asked to buy.  With regard to that range of model predictions, from one to five degrees: Even if we assumed the climate was not very sensitive, clearly a doubling of CO2 is bound to happen in the next century, and probably a trebling after that. If you look at the growth rates in population and the growth rates in standard of living that are plausible, and if you look at the dependence on fossil energy, which is definite--85 percent to 90 percent)--it seems very likely that you would treble and probably quadruple. At what stage does even a low sensitivity climate become vulnerable to climate change? There has to come a point when the forcing of greenhouse gases would become significant. Do you accept that? Would there come a point when you'd have concern? Let me deal first of all with the question of the future levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The fact is that people disagree about this. Some good experts believe that carbon dioxide will never even double [in/near] the atmosphere. They believe that the so-called decarbonization of our economy, which has been ongoing for some time, will continue. That is, we will use less and less fossil fuels to produce a unit of GNP. They also believe that fossil fuels will become more expensive as they become depleted, and that therefore in a very natural way nonfossil fuels will be used to produce energy. Nuclear energy is a good example. Nuclear energy produces no carbon dioxide whatsoever. And now nuclear energy is in bad repute in the United States and in some other countries. But in France, it produces 75 percent of electricity. In Japan, they've just decided to build 20 more nuclear reactors in the next ten years, which would increase their electricity capacity by 50 percent, all nuclear.  However, the two largest countries for population, India and China, have enormous dependence on coal. Most economists agree that as they expand, they will burn a lot of coal and produce a lot of CO2, and much more than the U.S. probably in thirty to fifty years. So, in the short term, I don't see grounds for optimism that CO2 won't go into the atmosphere. I'm not a prophet. I don't try to predict what the carbon dioxide levels will be in the future. But I can read and report on work that's being published. And certainly China and India, particularly China, will continue to increase its carbon dioxide emissions, no matter what we do. And this will soon dominate the world emissions, probably by the year 2010, at least by the year 2020. And beyond this, it really doesn't matter what we do. It will be determined by how many people are living in China and India, how much energy they consume, and whether or not they use coal or other fossil fuels. I think that's a given. The question is: Why should we be concerned about it? Is the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere any sort of danger to us?  That was my question. The model scenario you give is for a doubling. If we had a trebling or a quadrupling, is there a stage at which even an insensitive model produces a climate change that you would get serious about? Because clearly, a five-degree change is pretty significant, true? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to some increase in global temperatures. The question is: How much? We do have some way of getting a handle on this problem, because carbon dioxide levels have already increased by 50 percent since the beginning of the industrial era--let's say, in the last hundred years. So where is the temperature increase from this? Why don't we see it? This is the way to ask the question. And how can we be sure that any temperature increase that we do find in the record is in fact due to this additional carbon dioxide? Since we know that the climate also changes naturally--it warms, it cools)--how can you distinguish a warming produced by an increase in carbon dioxide from a warming produced by some other cause--let's say, by the sun? These are important issues that need to be settled. But let me go a step further and ask: Supposing carbon dioxide does increase by a factor of four, five--mention any number you wish. What has happened in the past? We have geologic evidence that carbon dioxide levels were twenty times as large during the fossil record as in the last 600 million years, and have been decreasing steadily. So carbon dioxide levels have been decreasing. The earth has experienced much, much higher levels than we have today, without any apparent ill effects, because life developed quite well. In fact, it blossomed forth at the beginning of the Cambrian period. And the only thing we are concerned about is carbon dioxide levels becoming too low, because if carbon dioxide levels were to fall below, let's say, one-half of the present level, as they almost did during the last ice age...if they were to fall below one-half of the present level, then plants would be in real trouble. After all, carbon dioxide is plant food. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants would disappear. And so would animals. And so would human beings. In other words, we do have a stake, a vested interest in making sure that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not fall to low levels. High levels of carbon dioxide should not concern us. They will make plants grow faster. They will make agriculture become more productive. They will encourage more diversity of animals, and they'll make for a better life for human beings. Obviously, lower costs for food, more food, is a better situation than higher costs and less food.  Some climatologists have argued that while there was indeed more CO2 if you go back to when the dinosaurs lived, since there's been ice in the world--since the last few million years--there's never been this much. And if we go up higher, it's the combination of CO2 and ice that's the issue. And then they would add to the argument that also the world has huge numbers of people on it, therefore it's less adaptable than perhaps it was before, in terms of consequence. I think to argue that the world is less adaptable because it has huge numbers of people is a specious argument. I think adaptability has to do with technology. Obviously, if people could adapt during the Ice Age, as they did to very low temperatures, and during the previous interglacial--let's say, 120,000 years ago--they certainly should be able to adapt to almost any climate change that we can imagine, because we have the technology to do so. And also, people can move, and do move. If we look at the historic record--let's say, the last 3,000 years--we see that during the cold periods, people really suffered. During the Little Ice Age, from around 1400 to 1800 or 1850, things were really cold in Europe, and we have records of this. Harvests failed. Food became scarce. People starved. There was much disease. It was a miserable period. Before that, we had what's called the medieval climate optimum--notice the word "optimum" used by climatologists here. The climate was warmer around the year 1100. The Vikings were able to settle Greenland, actually grow crops in Greenland, and life was good in Europe. Cathedrals were being built. There was plenty of food, plenty of surplus. So I think the historic record clearly shows that a warmer period is better for human beings than a colder period. And I would be much more afraid of adapting to a coming ice age than adapting to a coming warmer period.  Another argument sometimes made comes under the rubric of surprises--that there have been these sudden temperature shifts in history, particularly when you're coming out of an ice age--some people have tried to link them to changes in ocean circulation--where you get maybe ten-, fifteen-, twenty-degree drops within a matter of a decade. And the argument sometimes is put that this proves that the climate system is unstable at some level, that it can be perturbed to switch states quickly, and that we're messing with fire, because maybe what you're saying is true, but we might just hit it and trigger it, causing a big change. What do you think of that argument? Well, climate does change rapidly at times. But I think you should note that this all happened without any human intervention. Actually, we do have historic records again of climate changes that were faster and greater than anything predicted by the UN science group. For example we have records from ocean sediments with very good resolution, where we can actually resolve the temperatures that existed year by year. And we see climate changes that are really quite fast, without any human intervention. So I think these sorts of climate changes will keep occurring. Now, it's interesting that the variability of climate is greater when the climate is cold and when CO2 content is low. It's just a historic fact. When you analyze the data, you find that the variability of climate during the last ice age was much greater than it is during the present warm interglacial. So if you believe this, it would argue that we should have a warmer climate with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because it will make the climate more stable.  While there are scientists who hold views similar to yours on this subject, there are a very large number who don't. I want your reflections on what's happened in terms of the way this has played out with the intergovernmental panel on change, with the statements that a majority of scientists believe this or that, because there are a lot of scientists who feel very passionately there is an issue here. What do you think has been going on? Because there's a tremendous amount of people involved in modeling, an activity which you think is fairly limited in terms of what it's delivered so far. How are they getting away with it? Well, when you start talking about the question of scientific consensus, I think one should be very careful to say, first of all, that science is not decided by vote. I don't take a poll and then determine what is the correct answer. Science is decided by observations that either confirm or deny a theory, a hypothesis. And if they confirm the theory, you go on to the next set of observations and see whether it still holds. And if it works against the hypothesis, you try to develop a new hypothesis. That's how science makes progress. And, in fact, historically, every bit of scientific progress has come about because the observations or the experimental facts did not support the current theory. And, usually, these new experiments were done by a small group, or the new theory was proposed by a single individual, even. Take Albert Einstein, as an example, against the great opposition of the large scientific community. But science is a wonderful subject. It works itself out. The truth eventually emerges. So, this is my preface. In the climate business, the situation is more complicated because there are also political factors involved, and frankly, there's also money involved. This is an unusual situation. There's no politics attached to the theory of relativity, for example. But there is to climate science. There are no large sums of money attached to relativity, but there are to climate science. The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they're doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn't really live with themselves. They've talked themselves into the fact that the work they're doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem.  You're not saying they're dishonest, are you? I'm not saying that they're dishonest at all. No. No one has been caught falsifying data. No one has been caught falsifying calculations. But inevitably, when you have a particular point of view--(and this works both ways--you tend to suppress facts or data that disagree with your point of view, and you tend to favor data, observations that support your point of view. You become selective in the way you present your observations. Take an example. Take the UN Science Advisory Group, the IPCC. In their report--which is a very good report, by the way...which is close to 600 pages without an index, so no one really reads it except dedicated people like me--there's a five-page summary of the report that everyone reads, including politicians and the media. And if you look through the summary, you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary. Now, why is that? These are the only global observations we have. These are the best observations we have. They cover the whole globe. The surface observations don't cover the whole globe. They leave out large chunks of the globe. They don't cover the oceans very well, which is 70 percent of the globe. So you see, the summary uses data selectively, or at least it suppresses data that are inconvenient, that disagree with the paradigm, with what they're trying to prove. This happens often, unfortunately. Now, you'll also notice that people who are skeptical about global warming generally do not have government support for their work. They don't have to write proposals to government agencies to get money. They tend to be people who have other sources of income. They might even be retired and live on pensions, or they might [have] other sources of income that do not depend on writing research proposals to federal agencies. And if you look at research proposals to federal agencies, you will find that people who write a proposal saying, "I'm going to do research to show that global warming is not a real threat"...they're not likely to get funding from any of the government agencies.  Do you think, then, this is no longer operating as "normal" science, that there's some kind of pathological mechanism here? I think climate science is on its way to becoming pathological, to becoming abnormal in the sense that it is being guided by the money that's being made available to people. I don't blame people for accepting money. And the people who take the money and do research, by and large, are doing very competent research. [But] you'll find them very careful not to speak out against the global warming "threat"--(I'm putting "threat" in quotes, of course. And you'll find also that when they do speak out, as many of them do, they suffer consequences. They lose support. And I can give you examples of that. Or they have other consequences that are equally disagreeable. And if you're a young professor at a university and want to get tenure, or if you want to get a permanent academic position, you must do published research. And to do published research, you must write proposals to get money to do the research. So you're locked into a vicious spiral here. You have to go along with the current wisdom that global warming is a threat. Otherwise, you're not going to get the job that you want.  If you're right and they're wrong, then is what they're doing falsifiable? If, for instance, the next ten years was unusually cold, would that make them give up their theory? The climate business doesn't work the way laboratory science does. If the next ten years turn out to be cold, this by itself does not prove anything. It just makes it less likely that global warming is important. Because people will say, "Well, now instead of having 20 years of satellite data, we have 30 years of satellite data." They'll say, "Well, that's not really long enough. We need 100 years of satellite data that show cooling." And inevitably during the next 100 years, you're going to have some warming, because the climate is constantly changing. Certainly it will change as the solar radiation becomes stronger or weaker. And we know solar radiation does fluctuate on an 11-year cycle and on longer cycles.  But my question is: What could convince you that you were wrong? What could convince them they were wrong? What could actually resolve this debate to the satisfaction of honest scientists? If people can always interpret what happened within their model, how do you resolve it? I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better, and try to find more specific fingerprints-as I call them-- in the observations that can either be verified or falsified by models. And the global average temperature simply isn't good enough. It has to be based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements. Certainly we know that the models do not agree amongst themselves. So I think the first step is to find out why this is so, and work very hard to at least resolve the differences between [models], and then try to resolve differences between models and observations.  I want to finally get at this mix-up some people have between weather and climate. When we see Al Gore standing in front of forest fires in Florida, or talking about the droughts in Texas, or people saying, "Last July was extremely hot," does this constitute evidence of global warming? Or, the hot summer of 1998--is that evidence of global warming? Yes or no? What's going on there? A hot summer, a warm winter, is no evidence for global warming. Don't forget, we've had a warm winter in the United States, but temperatures in Europe and Russia were extremely cold. Of course, we don't hear about this because we read American papers describing weather in the United States. So all of these observations that we are bombarded with tend to be anecdotal. And if we have cold weather, that doesn't mean that an ice age is coming. But if we have many, many cold periods in succession, as we did, for example, between 1940 and 1975, where even global temperatures were decreasing, then people become quite concerned--and I do remember this period--about a coming ice age. And it's interesting that many of the kind of people who are now concerned about a coming global warming catastrophe were then concerned about a coming global cooling catastrophe. And what was their recommendation? Government has to do something about this. The National Academy of Sciences published a report in 1971, saying, as best as I recall, that a coming ice age was a definite probability within the next hundred years. The National Academy of Sciences...supposedly a collection of the best scientific minds to deal with this issue. Naturally, they're not--they're only as good as the particular panel that was chosen to do this work.  Anything else? . . . Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view. For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it.  If people can't rely on statements like "most scientists agree" and so forth, like that, with an issue of this complexity, how are they supposed to come to an opinion on it? How should people come to some conclusion when scientists disagree? I think this is a problem that people will have to ask themselves. They'll have to say: What happens in the worst case? Supposing the scientists who say it will warm are correct, is that good or bad? And the answer is: If it warms, it will be good. So what is the concern, really? Even if the warming should take place, and the warming will be noticeable...if that should be the case, if it is measurable, that does not mean that it is economically damaging. In fact, the opposite is true.  But you might get, for instance, flooding in Bangladesh or in the [Maldive] Islands, or in southern United States. Those have to be scenarios. If you have a warming up,four or five degrees, those are possibilities, aren't they? We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather. Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

 

 

 

[Dynasty]

How could climate scientists in the 1970s be 180 degrees wrong? 

 

According to them an ice age was imminent. 

 

A couple decades later, the impending ice age has all but been forgotten to be filled with a new doom and gloom the exact opposite of Global Warming. 

 

Why are failed climate predictions thrown away like a used kleenex?

 

Are the same individuals who believed an ice age was imminent the exact same individuals who believe it's really global warming? 

 

Is a certain subset of the human population pre-disposed to falling for hysterics? If so, what evolutionary advantage would this bring to the species?  

 

Why does hysteria shut down rationale thinking?  See example above. First it was an Ice Age, then it was the polar opposite of Global Warming. 

 

Are the same people who fall for hysterics pre-disposed to careers in academia and policy?  

 

Have those in positions of power who are able to pull the levers of society learned to control the masses through hysterics?  

 

Does the sunken cost fallacy also apply to belief systems? 

 

*****************

 

So as Global Warming also proved to be another failure, the narrative moved to a new more encompassing ideology that covers all the bases. Climate Change. 

 

Sunny and 70? Climate Change. 

 

Snowing and below Zero? Climate Change

 

Cloudy and a Chance of Rain: Climate Change

 

And every other conceivable form of weather pattern. It's all the result of Climate Change and can never be proven wrong.  Yesterday was 68 degrees and today it's 72? Climate Change. 

 

And the only solution is to trust the politicians. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dynasty

[rideforever]

Humanity is destroying everything.

Itself particularly.

It's bloody weird people talking about ice caps, climate and whatever.

They never talk about me ... I am unhappy.   I don't like what happens in society.

It's very weird.

Humans seem to always miss the mark.

They are angry, unhappy and distressed ... but when they point the finger they point it at the wrong thing.

They have many tricks.

As the titanic sinks they will point at the chimney stake and make an agenda about it, that's one trick.

Or they will point at Trump and it becomes all about him.

Anything except saying the simple truth.

We are destroying and plundering everything.

It means we as a species are very disturbed in ourselves, all of us, and we harm ourselves, those like us (and yes other creatures).

And all their "solutions" are just as mad as their pointing in the wrong direction.

 

Their distress is correct.

But they point at the wrong cause.

And then point at the wrong solution.

And then it just gets worse.

Mad.

[ralis]

51 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

How could climate scientists in the 1970s be 180 degrees wrong? 

 

According to them an ice age was imminent. 

 

A couple decades later, the impending ice age has all but been forgotten to be filled with a new doom and gloom the exact opposite of Global Warming. 

 

Why are failed climate predictions thrown away like a used kleenex?

 

Are the same individuals who believed an ice age was imminent the exact same individuals who believe it's really global warming? 

 

Is a certain subset of the human population pre-disposed to falling for hysterics? If so, what evolutionary advantage would this bring to the species?  

 

Why does hysteria shut down rationale thinking?  See example above. First it was an Ice Age, then it was the polar opposite of Global Warming. 

 

Are the same people who fall for hysterics pre-disposed to careers in academia and policy?  

 

Have those in positions of power who are able to pull the levers of society learned to control the masses through hysterics?  

 

Does the sunken cost fallacy also apply to belief systems? 

 

*****************

 

So as Global Warming also proved to be another failure, the narrative moved to a new more encompassing ideology that covers all the bases. Climate Change. 

 

Sunny and 70? Climate Change. 

 

Snowing and below Zero? Climate Change

 

Cloudy and a Chance of Rain: Climate Change

 

And every other conceivable form of weather pattern. It's all the result of Climate Change and can never be proven wrong.  Yesterday was 68 degrees and today it's 72? Climate Change. 

 

And the only solution is to trust the politicians. 

 

Before I put you on ignore, do you read the science or have you read Old Student and Void who both have well written posts here?

[voidisyinyang]

6 hours ago, joeblast said:

no, its "we couldnt come close to proving our point, now we need to get more creative in how we present things to try and show you that co2 AGW is indeed unpossible to be falsified"

 

now please, tell us again about how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes

 

Hey Joe - where'd you get that quantum mechanics?

 

It's pretty funny that the co-author of the Sokal Hoax, Professor Jean Bricmont, also promotes the de Broglie model of quantum mechanics (which was the first model created, the model that included relativity).

 

So now Bricmont is ignored by mainstream quantum mechanics since mainstream quantum mechanics tries to dismiss nonlocality.

 

Be that as it may - quantum mechanics has been recognized as the foundation of physics since the early 1900s - and as my quantum mechanics professor Herbert J. Bernstein emphasized, people in high school take classical physics as their WRONG foundation of reality - so they are brainwashed from an early age!

 

Kind of amazing if you think about it. I realized this intuitively - I refused to take high school physics - instead I scored 98% in biology on the ACT - and then I took quantum mechanics my first year of college. I also was secretly against the Pythagorean Theorem. haha.

 

Anyway I've already posted the links for the quantum mechanics explaining global warming. The physics professor was at University of Chicago - which is a conservative school - so it can't be part of the "Libtard Snowflake Conspiracy." haha. Now he's at Oxford or is it Cambridge? focused on global warming physics still.

 

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/reducing-c02-emissions-must-be-priority-mitigating-climate-change-study-says

 

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/9834215_Raymond_T_Pierrehumbert

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Dynasty]

I've read the science. It's politically motivated.  

 

So answer the question. How could the climate models of the 1970s be so backwards?  Not just a little wrong. But 100% incorrect. That of course is assuming the new climate models are in fact correct. 

 

[voidisyinyang]

5 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

I've read the science. It's politically motivated.  

 

So answer the question. How could the climate models of the 1970s be so backwards?  Not just a little wrong. But 100% incorrect. That of course is assuming the new climate models are in fact correct. 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[ralis]

5 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

I've read the science. It's politically motivated.  

 

So answer the question. How could the climate models of the 1970s be so backwards?  Not just a little wrong. But 100% incorrect. That of course is assuming the new climate models are in fact correct. 

 

 

I asked for links awhile back regarding ocean level rise in Miami and so far no response. Further, you make a demand “so answer the question” which is more authoritarian than just asking me in a reasonable manner. Be reasonable and we may have a discussion. 

 

One thing to note is that scientific investigations are not seeking absolutes, but findings are based on probabilities of less than 1. If you can accept that then reasonable discussions can ensue. 

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:12 AM, joeblast said:

its only a matter of time before co2 catstrophe conjectureism is laughed out of even academia, drew. 

Quote

Ocean surface temperatures upwards of 10F hotter than average have helped to warm up the state’s coasts. When Bering and Chukchi sea ice collapsed and melted months earlier than normal this spring, the University of Alaska climate specialist Rick Thoman characterized the water as “baking”. “I intentionally try to not be hyperbolic, but what do you say when there’s 10- to 20- degree ocean water temperature above normal?” Thoman told the Guardian. “How else do you describe that besides extraordinary?” The hot water has affected sea birds and marine life, with mass mortality events becoming commonplace in the region. The National Park Service characterizes Alaska’s increasingly frequent sea bird die-offs, called “wrecks”, as “extreme”. “The folks in the communities are saying these animals look like they’ve starved to death,” said Thoman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/alaska-heat-wildfires-climate-change

oops - back on Planet Earth....

yes I lived in Alaska for six months....

More proof that 2019 will be worse than the 2012 low - on arctic ice: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-area-multiprod.png

Quote

"Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI [arctic sea ice] lost (compared to 1979-2000)? 50% [NSIDC Extent] or 73% [PIOMAS Volume] Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone. -> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost."

 

 

2019 is already worse than the worst arctic melt year. And with Alaska being so hot - that hot water is gonna keep melting the arctic ice faster...

 

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

2019 is already worse than the worst arctic melt year. And with Alaska being so hot - that hot water is gonna keep melting the arctic ice faster...

 

And what? Climate change in an of itself is a non-issue. The real issue is what do we do? All I hear in this regard is something along the lines of "we should bankrupt the civilized world on the hope that we can reduce temperatures by 1-2 degrees centigrade in 50 years." That's not a compelling argument. Why create a financial crisis to maybe avoid a climate crisis? So what do we do?

Edited July 8, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[rideforever]

According to research conducted at ETH Zurich, restoring all degraded forests all over the world could capture about 205 billion tons of carbon in total (which is about 2/3rd of all carbon emissions, bringing global warming down to below 2°C)

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/world/forests-capture-two-thirds-of-carbon-emissions-scn-intl/index.html

 

Plus just think of the virtue signalling opportunities for young people.

Plus you don't have to attack half the planet for "being bad", which people don't generally appreciate.

[joeblast]

15 hours ago, ralis said:

 

I asked for links awhile back regarding ocean level rise in Miami and so far no response. Further, you make a demand “so answer the question” which is more authoritarian than just asking me in a reasonable manner. Be reasonable and we may have a discussion. 

 

One thing to note is that scientific investigations are not seeking absolutes, but findings are based on probabilities of less than 1. If you can accept that then reasonable discussions can ensue. 

its not like you look at information that goes against your preformed beliefs anyway

 

Quote

GROUND WATER RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE – Land Subsidence in the United States – USGS Fact Sheet-165-00 – December 2000
“A recent U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) report (Galloway and others, 1999) shows that sustainable development of our land and water resources depends on improved scientific understanding and detection of subsidence. The report features nine illustrative case studies that demonstrate the role of subsurface water in human-induced land subsidence (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182). More than 80 percent of the identified subsidence in the United States is a consequence of human impact on subsurface water, and is an often overlooked environmental consequence of our land and water-use practices. The increasing development of our land and water resources threatens to exacerbate existing land-subsidence problems and initiate new one (fig.1).

Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence is a global problem and, in the United States, more than 17,000 square miles in 45 States, an area roughly the size of New Hampshire and Vermont combined, have been directly affected by subsidence. The principal causes are aquifer-system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydrocompaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost (National Research Council, 1991). Three distinct processes account for most of the water-related subsidence–compaction of aquifer systems, drainage and subsequent oxidation of organic soils, and dissolution and collapse of susceptible rocks.”

 

 

Quote

Groundwater Depletion Is Detected From Space

Published: May 30, 2011

IRVINE, Calif. — “Scientists have been using small variations in theEarth’s gravity to identify trouble spots around the globe where people are making unsustainable demands on groundwater, one of the planet’s main sources of fresh water.They found problems in places as disparate as North Africa, northern India, northeastern China and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley in California, heartland of that state’s $30 billion agricultural industry.Jay S. Famiglietti, director of the University of California’s Center for Hydrologic Modeling here, said the center’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, known as Grace, relies on the interplay of two nine-year-old twin satellites that monitor each other while orbiting the Earth, thereby producing some of the most precise data ever on the planet’s gravitational variations. The results are redefining the field of hydrology, which itself has grown more critical as climate change and population growth draw down the world’s fresh water supplies.Grace sees “all of the change in ice, all of the change in snow and water storage, all of the surface water, all of the soil moisture, all of the groundwater,” Dr. Famiglietti explained.” See the rest of the article here:GROUND WATER DEPLETION SINK HOLES

Quote

Overuse of underground water sinking land
“The Department of Mineral Resources has discovered that land at the Nong Rang Village in Nakhon Ratchasima province’s Non Thai district was subsiding because salt factories were overusing underground water.”

 

Quote

 -  “Miami Is Sinking, But That Doesn’t Mean Sea Levels Are Rising”

Sea level expert Geologist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner ridiculed the claim in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that Florida would be half covered by rising seas. “These are models. They are doing it wrongly, and this is lobbying. Geologic facts are on one side, lobbying and models are on the other side.” Morner added, “The rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen.” ...

 

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: “If you look at the total global sea level from about 1850 until the present time it’s been rising at a fairly constant rate, rather slow—about 7 inches a century.... It’s about 1 to 2 mm a year so if you’re 50 years old you experienced a sea level rise about 3 ½ inches and you probably didn’t even notice it,” 

 

Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:  “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years." ... Spencer on Miami flooding: “That flooding is mostly a combination of (1) natural sea level rise (I show there has been no acceleration of sea level rise beyond what was already happening since the 1800s), and (2) satellite-measured sinking of the reclaimed swamps that have been built upon for over 100 years in Miami Beach.”

 

U. Penn Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack explains, “At the present rate of sea-level rise it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there [to Gore’s predicted rise of 20 feet]. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming.”

 

 

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/16/analysis-debunks-absurd-sea-level-rise-claims-about-south-florida/

 

but oh wait here comes the kneejerk dismissal "but that's funded by big oil, so I can safely ignore any data and conclusions from it"

 

 

 

 

when you just cant get correlation and causation right....

 

 

 

 

 

 

and lol Drew....go watch Jon Lovitz again.  When he says Acting!!! it might as well be you saying "Quantum Mechanics!"  Just strike that pose and declare it and all your carbon fantasies come true....on the big screen, where everything's fake anyway!

 

its amusing because I see all kinds of positive stories about what's going on, and you just post all negative conjectures and hypotheses - but I get it, when there's that severe fundamental misunderstanding of the physical processes of what's actually going on and you cant understand where you are in a series of periodic functions.

 

so I wind up having you giving me straw man after straw man but the big problem is you still believe the over compressed and flattened out value that comes through the meat grinder and inputted as TSI actually does a good job at capturing that first word in the acronym there, TOTAL - because face it, this is where the space is provided for the charlatans to promote third order effects to a point where they are more important than variations in first order processes, which is absolute poppycock.

 

when you have fundamental misunderstandings, then your predictions are shit - as we've seen with all the predictions that the co2 conjectures have given us.

 

/recalls master Nan talking about blind cats bumping into freshly dead rats

[ralis]

1 hour ago, joeblast said:

its not like you look at information that goes against your preformed beliefs anyway

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/16/analysis-debunks-absurd-sea-level-rise-claims-about-south-florida/

 

but oh wait here comes the kneejerk dismissal "but that's funded by big oil, so I can safely ignore any data and conclusions from it"

 

 

 

 

when you just cant get correlation and causation right....

 

 

 

 

 

 

and lol Drew....go watch Jon Lovitz again.  When he says Acting!!! it might as well be you saying "Quantum Mechanics!"  Just strike that pose and declare it and all your carbon fantasies come true....on the big screen, where everything's fake anyway!

 

its amusing because I see all kinds of positive stories about what's going on, and you just post all negative conjectures and hypotheses - but I get it, when there's that severe fundamental misunderstanding of the physical processes of what's actually going on and you cant understand where you are in a series of periodic functions.

 

so I wind up having you giving me straw man after straw man but the big problem is you still believe the over compressed and flattened out value that comes through the meat grinder and inputted as TSI actually does a good job at capturing that first word in the acronym there, TOTAL - because face it, this is where the space is provided for the charlatans to promote third order effects to a point where they are more important than variations in first order processes, which is absolute poppycock.

 

when you have fundamental misunderstandings, then your predictions are shit - as we've seen with all the predictions that the co2 conjectures have given us.

 

/recalls master Nan talking about blind cats bumping into freshly dead rats

 

You keep quoting the same people that have been thoroughly discredited. Basically, your opinions which differ from AGW don't count!

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

[joeblast]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

You keep quoting the same people that have been thoroughly discredited. Basically, your opinions which differ from AGW don't count!

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

ok so we've got places that see the sea encroaching more than others

 

and you want to tell me the difference is not attributable to subsidence, but that the water is actually just simply rising faster in certain places on the globe than others?

 

perhaps you'd like to explain how that works on a globe covered with water

 

I'm honestly surprised you dont believe the earth is flat or hollow, but I suppose all we'd need to have you believe it is someone in academia start giving out reasons why they could be true and it'd change your mind right quick

Edited July 8, 2019 by joeblast
are you going to be more surprised when the clintons go to gitmo or when the co2 hoax is finally put to bed? ultimately its the same money doing these perversions

[escott]

17 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

And what? Climate change in an of itself is a non-issue. The real issue is what do we do? All I hear in this regard is something along the lines of "we should bankrupt the civilized world on the hope that we can reduce temperatures by 1-2 degrees centigrade in 50 years." That's not a compelling argument. Why create a financial crisis to maybe avoid a climate crisis? So what do we do?

 

Yep, any debate over man-made global warming doesn't matter. It's going to remain business as usual. Water Scarcity is the real issue everyone should be taking about.

 

If CO2 is the real cause of climate change then the only ones who can know for sure are the high priests of science.

 

The focus should be on Water Scarcity, that is the most immediate threat. What are we going to do to ensure a reliable, safe supply of fresh water to agriculture, industry, and people?

[Lost in Translation]

51 minutes ago, escott said:

The focus should be on Water Scarcity, that is the most immediate threat. What are we going to do to ensure a reliable, safe supply of fresh water to agriculture, industry, and people?

 

We already have many answers to this question. Israel has robust measures to reclaim rain water, purify and repurpose sewage water for agriculture, desalination plants to turn salt water into fresh water, and an amazing drip-irrigation watering system for crops. They have offered to share the technology with the world, free of change, but no one seems to notice... 

[escott]

19 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

We already have many answers to this question. Israel has robust measures to reclaim rain water, purify and repurpose sewage water for agriculture, desalination plants to turn salt water into fresh water, and an amazing drip-irrigation watering system for crops. They have offered to share the technology with the world, free of change, but no one seems to notice... 

 

You're 100% right. But, for some reason the powers that be would rather have us chase the ghost of CO2 instead of investing in water technology.

[escott]

Here's an example of real climate change.

 

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/10/14/what-the-disappearing-aral-sea-tells-us-about-the-value-of-water/

 

[joeblast]

1 hour ago, escott said:

Here's an example of real actual manmade climate change.

 

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/10/14/what-the-disappearing-aral-sea-tells-us-about-the-value-of-water/

 

FTFY

 

 

 

cuz pretty much everything else they cant really separate the signal from the noise, not that they have a reliable and accurate model to plug it into......not that they have an accurate and robust solar model to marry it with that would actually give it the potential for some longer term predictions...

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/7/2019 at 8:02 PM, Lost in Translation said:

 

And what? Climate change in an of itself is a non-issue. The real issue is what do we do? All I hear in this regard is something along the lines of "we should bankrupt the civilized world on the hope that we can reduce temperatures by 1-2 degrees centigrade in 50 years." That's not a compelling argument. Why create a financial crisis to maybe avoid a climate crisis? So what do we do?

You might want to study the empirical evidence better to put the "civilized world" into ecological context.

When you say, "All I hear" - you are talking about corporate-state mass media control. You're not talking about the actual empirical evidence.

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-breaching-carbon-threshold-mass-extinction.html

Quote

Today's oceans are absorbing carbon about an order of magnitude faster than the worst case in the geologic record—the end-Permian extinction. But humans have only been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for hundreds of years, versus the tens of thousands of years or more that it took for volcanic eruptions or other disturbances to trigger the great environmental disruptions of the past. Might the modern increase of carbon be too brief to excite a major disruption?

 

 

According to Rothman, today we are "at the precipice of excitation," and if it occurs, the resulting spike—as evidenced through ocean acidification, species die-offs, and more—is likely to be similar to past global catastrophes.

"Once we're over the threshold, how we got there may not matter," says Rothman, who is publishing his results this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Once you get over it, you're dealing with how the Earth works, and it goes on its own ride."

 

 

So try to realize that these "civilized humans" that you speak of are completely clueless about the effects of civilization on planetary ecology!! It's kind of hilarious.

 

Now this is a Daoist website - Daoism actually is NOT based on Western civilization (contrary to all the New Age Westernized Platonic Esoteric b.s. on this site).

 

So in other words you can practice Daoist meditation Neidan and step outside the purvey of Western civilization, as it were. Humans, modern biological humans, have been around for over 1 million years and Daoist meditation is from our original human culture - the San Bushmen training states to visualize fire at the base of the spine to turn water into boiling steam as healing electromagnetic energy - called N/om.

 

So what should we do? The Daoist meditation activates the pineal gland which resonates based on the Solar-Lunar electrogravitic energy that exists and resonates through the Equinox and Solstices and Full Moons, etc. So yes over hundreds of millions of years the Moon will change its trajectory to Earth. Right now the full moon resonates particularly with the Sun to create the 24 hour days, etc.

 

So then when we activate the Yuan Qi this is the Cosmic Qi from virtual photons - relativistic quantum physics. The highest technology of all technologies is INSIDE us!!

 

That's really all we can do. Realize that Western Civilization made a lot of fun technology but at great expense to the ecology of the Earth but there is a bigger dynamic at play that Western civilization "exists within."

 

Most people are NOT willing to make that consideration - even despite this being a Daoist website. haha. Quite hilarious actually.

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

So try to realize that these "civilized humans" that you speak of are completely clueless about the effects of civilization on planetary ecology!! It's kind of hilarious.

 

No. You are wrong. You are not reading what I am saying, so I'll repeat it: I would much rather spend effort building tools to enable humanity to survive despite changes in the climate than bankrupt civilization in an attempt to change the climate.

 

 

For example: cheaper power driving ubiquitous cooling systems to combat rising temperatures and cheap desalination to combat reduced rain fall.

 

An advanced civilization can live anywhere, under any conditions, but a bankrupt society will find it difficult to live under the best circumstances, and I do not want to bankrupt our civilization.

[Stosh]

7 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

 

7 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

That's really all we can do. Realize that Western Civilization made a lot of fun technology but at great expense to the ecology of the Earth but there is a bigger dynamic at play that Western civilization "exists within."

 

Most people are NOT willing to make that consideration - even despite this being a Daoist website. haha. Quite hilarious actually.

 

 

Go do it, go make it real for yourself. 

You have spoken your mind, it's locked in the stone of digital storage... 

Go live like a San dude. 

Or ancient Farmer.

 

Give your belongings away and go find some uninhabited spot where you can live greenly , recycle your own waste for cooking fuel and weave your fingernail clippings into placemats. 

 

Because you guys are telling westerners, including yourself,  to sacrifice all the goodies we have , while the developing world reproduces out of control , destroys forest, and so forth,  VISIBLY trashing the place.

Instead,

 be honest , and sincere, n Go to China, and tell them to cut it out.

,....buuut

You probably won't...

 You say one thing and do the complete reverse of it,  as you are saying it. 

That there ,is what is ridiculous.

 

[joeblast]

9 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

you are talking about corporate-state mass media control.

I sure am

Quote

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

and this doesnt quite so much mean that EVERYTHING is false, but moreso that the information pool is sufficiently poisoned so that it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to determine what's actually truly correct.

 

this is by design

 

and dont kid yourself, climate science is absolutely one of them.

 

Its too bad all the malfeasance at Penn State & East Anglia was just swept under the rug by people invested in a certain outcome.

 

But that's how climate science has gone since politicians got the idea that they could establish a whole brand new tranche of tax revenues if they could only get Science™ on board.  Hence the reason grant writers

Spoiler

who need to write grants to tickle the fancies of the grant approvers (politicians)

wrote whatever they needed to write in order to put food on their table.  Which ironically is the exact same thing Big Oil is accused of doing.

Edited July 9, 2019 by joeblast