U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects

[Rodent + 1,424]

On 10/8/2018 at 3:43 PM, Guillaume Albasini said:

I live in Switzerland and here I can feel the climate changing. 

That belongs on a meme!

[Janet Alderton + 124]

I am putting my hopes for a livable planet in basic economics. 

We can ignore the Climate Change deniers.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

8 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

We can ignore the Climate Change deniers.

What about us pesky Climate Change skeptics though?  We aren't planning to go away.

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

What about us pesky Climate Change skeptics though?  We aren't planning to go away.

Like flat earthers, but with more money to "bribe" (believe the correct words are donate and lobby) government members with.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

47 minutes ago, DA? said:

Like flat earthers, but with more money to "bribe" (believe the correct words are donate and lobby) government members with.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Well, I do respect Neil deGrasse Tyson, and in this video he has some compelling things to say about this subject.  Keep working on us, maybe we'll come around......

Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science

[DA? + 301]

13 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A research analyst at Swiss investment bank UBS believes the cost of energy renewables could be so near to zero by 2030 “it will effectively be free,” according to a projections published on Monday. If renewables could soon be cheaper than all the alternative energy sources, and that this “is great news for the planet, and probably also for the economy.”

The analysis, published in the Financial Times, explains that solar and wind farms are getting bigger, and that the potential of this sort of cheap, green energy is far-reaching and will only get cheaper. “In 2010, using solar power to boil your kettle would have cost you about £0.03,” the analyst writes in FT. “By 2020, according to estimates by our research team at UBS, the cost will have fallen to half a penny.” And just ten years later, the costs will be so minuscule, it will practically be free.

 

 

 

The consumer connected to mains power will of course have to pay. But what they will pay for mainly in the future will be the powers lines and such the actual electricity generation looks like it should get down to around 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour in many places. So 1/12 of the cheapest fossil fuel electricity, it's already getting down to 2 cents (and less) in feed in tariff auctions so 1/3 of the cheapest fossil. Although already in Australia it's cheaper to cut the connection and go solar battery. Soon home generation and storage will be cheaper than just the connection charge.

[JunoTen + 118]

20 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

A research analyst at Swiss investment bank UBS believes the cost of energy renewables could be so near to zero by 2030 “it will effectively be free,” according to a projections published on Monday. If renewables could soon be cheaper than all the alternative energy sources, and that this “is great news for the planet, and probably also for the economy.”

The analysis, published in the Financial Times, explains that solar and wind farms are getting bigger, and that the potential of this sort of cheap, green energy is far-reaching and will only get cheaper. “In 2010, using solar power to boil your kettle would have cost you about £0.03,” the analyst writes in FT. “By 2020, according to estimates by our research team at UBS, the cost will have fallen to half a penny.” And just ten years later, the costs will be so minuscule, it will practically be free.

 

 

 

I did forget about the details, thanks Tom. I had read about this news earlier in the week and didn't bother to read it again.

But that's not what's important! What's important is that renewables are indeed getting cheaper and that it's not stopping anytime soon, not even after they're cheaper than fossil fuels, which will be a consistent fact by 2020.

So there's no need to worry about climate change.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

So there's no need to worry about climate change.

I'm more concerned (and amused) about the Climate Change lynch mob cultists who seem to demand unthinking acceptance of their claims.  

Sometimes I push back a bit, trying to gently kick-start a bit of cognitive dissonance in people who tend to blindly accept whatever info-tainment / fear porn that MSM like CNN breathlessly pumps out.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

No far-left political agenda here at all...

 

[JunoTen + 118]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I'm more concerned (and amused) about the Climate Change lynch mob cultists who seem to demand unthinking acceptance of their claims.  

Sometimes I push back a bit, trying to gently kick-start a bit of cognitive dissonance in people who tend to blindly accept whatever info-tainment / fear porn that MSM like CNN breathlessly pumps out.

Oh yeah those are dangerous indeed. It's an opportunity for politicians on the left to pose as saviors of the world, this whole global warming thing. It's also an opportunity for them to sell their whole package.

However it'll soon be stripped from them I believe because the goals defined by the climate scientists will actually be met. They'll have to find some other fear-mongering scheme.

[Cowpoke + 70]

Holes in them there data sets:

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Main points:

• The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
• McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
• Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.  One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
• Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
• Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
• When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This red downvote really made my day.  Big chuckle.  You just proved my point.

: )

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

P.S. I get a kick out of the new NPC memes.  (NPC = Non-Player Characters)

[MrGreat + 7]

" Prior to the industrial revolution of the 1700s, when the world depended almost exclusively on renewable energy, poverty and subsistence was the rule. The rise of mass affluence only came when highly concentrated energy – in the form of fossil fuels — made sustainable progress possible, both material and social.  Lifespans improved along with living conditions and eventually the environment did too, as fossil fuels curtailed the denuding of forested lands to obtain charcoal for industry and wood fuel for heating. "

[MrGreat + 7]

"Fossil fuels also cause pollution in our society but – thanks to past environmental pressure – relatively little: The enormous volumes of fly-ash, mercury, SOX and NOX that once dirtied the environment belong to a bygone era. Today, BTU for BTU, fossil fuels are generally more benign to human health and the environment than wind and solar, not to mention ethanol and hydroelectricity, which have often devastating impacts through air pollution (ethanol) and flooding (in the case of China’s Three Gorges Dam, the casualties included the farms, fisheries and livelihoods of some 1.4 million people). "

[MrGreat + 7]

 

Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/8/2018 at 10:13 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Thank you for that rebuttal.

That "97% of scientists" figure is unsupported twaddle.  Hogwash.  Purely invented claptrap.  Unprovable misdirection.

Anyone upset by my views?  Then by all means, prove me wrong with independent, verifiable facts.  You know, like actual science - with results that are able to be independently replicated and verified....

OK I'll take you up on this. I let you wear me down with your unsupported nonsense before but this is important enough to dispute on record because I have children that have to live in this world after me. Your false beliefs are a threat can no longer be tolerated.

To begin with the 97% is accurate when ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are polled as has been done multiple times. The 31000 ( the number keeps mysteriously changing) from the petition include less than 1% climate scientists and are mostly made up of people with little or no research background theonly requirement being a Bachelor. This is verifiable by looking up the names on the petition. Many articles exist of the results of doing so.

So I assume that you admit the world is warming but don't want to admit that it is our own fault, specifically the fault of those that lied and stopped climate action from occurring 30 years ago. 

The biggest single piece of evidence is the question: Where is the energy coming from if not the insulating properties of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere?

Roughly 1.2 x 10^22 joules are added to the oceans every year.

The Earth is not heating from the inside. That would be reflected in ground temperature data and it is not.

The Earth is not being heated from the outside. Total solar irradiance is down about 0.1% due to low solar activity.

That leaves something happening in the atmosphere or on the surface. 

Some examples:

1 Megaton nuclear weapon - 4.8x10^15 joules I think we would notice a few thousand of these going off every year.

2004 Indonesia Earthquake - 1.1x10^17 joules, funny, I don't remember many of these.

Tambora 1815 Volcano Eruption - 1.4x10^20 joules, getting closer but again I think we would notice a hundred of these

The kind of natural causes that could add 1.2x10^22 joules of heat PER YEAR would have to be larger than the largest natural catastrophic events we have witnessed. Unless you have an alternative explanation of where this much energy is coming from besides extra insulation from CO2 we have added. IT IS DEFINITIVELY US.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

5 hours ago, MrGreat said:

"Fossil fuels also cause pollution in our society but – thanks to past environmental pressure – relatively little: The enormous volumes of fly-ash, mercury, SOX and NOX that once dirtied the environment belong to a bygone era. Today, BTU for BTU, fossil fuels are generally more benign to human health and the environment than wind and solar, not to mention ethanol and hydroelectricity, which have often devastating impacts through air pollution (ethanol) and flooding (in the case of China’s Three Gorges Dam, the casualties included the farms, fisheries and livelihoods of some 1.4 million people). "

The fly ash is a bygone era?!? Then where did all the fly-ash that Florence let loose come from?

Funny how people commit suicide by sitting in a garage with the fossil fuel car running until they are poisoned.

Funny how you can't do that with an EV.

Get your head out of the sand and stop supporting climate deniers before you hurt your childern, and everyone elses.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

5 hours ago, MrGreat said:

" Prior to the industrial revolution of the 1700s, when the world depended almost exclusively on renewable energy, poverty and subsistence was the rule. The rise of mass affluence only came when highly concentrated energy – in the form of fossil fuels — made sustainable progress possible, both material and social.  Lifespans improved along with living conditions and eventually the environment did too, as fossil fuels curtailed the denuding of forested lands to obtain charcoal for industry and wood fuel for heating. "

Ya, well now it is killing us, so let's not be stupid when we have alternatives. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/12/2018 at 2:39 AM, Janet Alderton said:

I am putting my hopes for a livable planet in basic economics. 

We can ignore the Climate Change deniers.

Simply not enough time. Now we must fight.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/8/2018 at 8:00 AM, Petar said:

I wonder, how will economies of the world react to this? As before!

Only if we let them. They will respond to buying patterns like they are to EVs. Vote with your money. It is the only thing the bad actors listen to.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/12/2018 at 2:50 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

What about us pesky Climate Change skeptics though?  We aren't planning to go away.

Ya but we are making sure that people stop listening to liars.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/12/2018 at 5:40 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

No far-left political agenda here at all...

 

No, it is the agenda of everyone who wants to keep this planet a relatively comfortable place to live.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 10/13/2018 at 7:38 PM, Cowpoke said:

Holes in them there data sets:

BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Main points:

• The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars.
• McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
• Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.  One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
• Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.
• Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean.
• When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

Great so after correcting the dataset, what did he find? I'll answer for you, nothing. Because the data set was so large that those small inconsistencies didn't make a difference.