AGW: When realist start speaking up

[PE Scott + 563]

This article really says it all.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

It's not a long read. I can mostly agree with this argument. Where I won't outright deny that humanity has contributed to global warming, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be in some instances and I'm uncertain of the actual contribution CO2 has when compared to the unknown number of other factors. As the author points out here, the alarmist rhetoric typically drives me further away from the AGW narrative because it is so baseless. If the point of money being invested in alternative green energy is really to save human lives, it could be better spent many different ways. I'd propose that the major suppliers and beneficiaries of renewable energies care less about facts than they do about subsidies and market share though, so the circus continues. 

Anyhow, I'll prepare myself now to be educated on why this is all wrong. For the sake of fair discussion though, please refrain from baseless attacks on intelligence based on someone's writing ability or choice of words. If the message isn't clear, ask them to clarify and make an effort to understand their point of view so you can refute it accordingly if you see fit. Have fun and happy trolling!

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 11/26/2019 at 2:35 AM, PE Scott said:

This article really says it all.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

It's not a long read. I can mostly agree with this argument. Where I won't outright deny that humanity has contributed to global warming, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be in some instances and I'm uncertain of the actual contribution CO2 has when compared to the unknown number of other factors. As the author points out here, the alarmist rhetoric typically drives me further away from the AGW narrative because it is so baseless. If the point of money being invested in alternative green energy is really to save human lives, it could be better spent many different ways. I'd propose that the major suppliers and beneficiaries of renewable energies care less about facts than they do about subsidies and market share though, so the circus continues. 

Anyhow, I'll prepare myself now to be educated on why this is all wrong. For the sake of fair discussion though, please refrain from baseless attacks on intelligence based on someone's writing ability or choice of words. If the message isn't clear, ask them to clarify and make an effort to understand their point of view so you can refute it accordingly if you see fit. Have fun and happy trolling!

Agreed entirely.

Any argument I've seen in favor of AGW has been horribly - and very obviously - flawed.  The most damning evidence is that the models don't work.  Scott Adams summarized their behavior brilliantly:

The simple fact of the matter is that until they're consistently producing models that predict future climate, they have nothing.  As of right now, they have nothing. 

Digging deeper into the "science", I discovered stunning incompetence.  I've lost the link, but the most interesting example was a computer scientist who worked for a climate agency noting that their programming skills were non-existent.  Simple errors in the code (E.g. off-by-one errors, which are covered in CS 101) led to such results as the hockey stick graph.  My own discussions with climate "scientists" revealed that while they understood fundamental phenomena, they were remarkably bad at understanding systems.  E.g. they consistently failed to account for all possible inputs to a system (Modeling 101), choosing instead to fixate on their pet phenomenon.  When it comes to system modeling, they have no idea what they're doing - and they're doing a lot of it. 

The "science" was so sloppy I became suspicious and dug into the politics of it.  The screeching environmentalists at the bottom are fearful pawns who don't know any better.  The people formulating these ideas and feeding them to the pawns are making a killing.  This, in my opinion, is the most likely explanation for why climate "science" continues to be funded. 

To summarize, I started with an open mind, continually stumbled into sloppy work, eventually became suspicious of the motivations behind that work, and discovered that there is, in fact, a financial motive for funding bad science.  The climate "science" community has exhausted my patience for incompetence and zealotry.  IMHO, climate "scientists" are frauds.  As with any other fraud, their claims should be ignored until they produce extraordinary, independently verified evidence. 

[PE Scott + 563]

Here's another article I ran across. This one with the backing of a number of scientists.

90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

 

The short and simple:

 CO2 = not bad

other emissions that are known to be harmful should be addressed, CO2 just isn't one of them.

[remake it + 288]

Resolving simple matters in science can be fun because thersetical mockery from quisquilian sites is like chickens.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

4 hours ago, remake it said:

Resolving simple matters in science can be fun because thersetical mockery from quisquilian sites is like chickens.

Haha says the bot who uses Facebook as its terms of reference!

Somewhat ironic don't you think!

[NickW + 2,714]

The past predictions ( a few below) appear to be broadly comparable to the observations to date

 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

On 12/5/2019 at 4:42 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

IMHO, climate "scientists" are frauds. 

Why so many here rely on their own opinions and gross ignorance is mind numbing although provides an insight into why an oil website has so many threads on climate that seldom delve into why the science will ultimately impact the viability of fossil fuels and therefore the careers of those in the industry.

[PE Scott + 563]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

The past predictions ( a few below) appear to be broadly comparable to the observations to date

 

 

 

In the interest of being fair and unbiased:

I saw some articles the other day espousing the accuracy of climate models from the past when updated with actual pollutant concentrations observed since their inception. Here is one of them:

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Interesting enough, the hinge factors they describe, in this article at least, are methane and aerosols....not CO2. Still, interesting stuff. I need to look up the original paper from Berkley and read through their research methodology before commenting much more. 

I have no doubt the world is warming. I think that's pretty evident. I have my doubts still on the mechanism of that warming and the degree of global sensitivity to emissions generated by humans. 

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Interesting enough, the hinge factors they describe, in this article at least, are methane and aerosols....not CO2. Still, interesting stuff. I need to look up the original paper from Berkley and read through their research methodology before commenting much more. 

It was actually referencing a book and CO2's properties were laid out although most people would be oblivious to the fact that modelling was championed some 50 years ago and has only got better over time.

[canadas canadas + 136]

Climate change is one of those things that if one is wrong about it, it will be very costly in many different ways.  Can we afford to ignore it or not?  We can deny anything that we feel like denying no matter what it is until it eventually comes and bites us in the butt. By that time it might be too late to be able to do anything about it. In the past, there were hotter times with more CO2 in the atmosphere and an abundance of plants before animals.  I can understand why younger people feel more alarmed by this than older people since they will be the ones having to deal with it more in their upcoming lives.  If we hold money dearer than anything else then we are eventually doomed to extinction. 

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

If we hold money dearer than anything else then we are eventually doomed to extinction. 

I agree with this sentiment. On the other side of that coin, if we waste money needlessly or spend it ineffectively, it could be devastating to many of the same people it was designed to help. Maybe not in the sense that money spent on projects will cause direct harm, but in the sense that more effective uses of the money were passed up in favor of something bogus. 

It's really one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't type of scenarios. I can see both sides of the argument and can empathize with both. I tend to lean towards working with O&G industry AND alternative energy....be they green, nuclear, perpetual motion machines, etc. What I'm against is sensationalism to drive an agenda for AGW and I'm against the demonization of fossil fuels and all the industry involved in it. It seems like we should be looking to work towards a solution that benefits everyone. 

Ranting: perhaps part of my problem is I'm pretty fascinated with electric cars and I frequently read articles about them. In a sadly obvious and with no apologies kind of style, many of these publications are HEAVILY biased against all things fossil fuels. Theyll say crazy things like "driving an electric car also gives you the peace of mind that you're not killing millions with deadly polutants".  I'll try to find the exact article I'm thinking of, but that's pretty close. Stuff like that drives me crazy.

[NickW + 2,714]

39 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I agree with this sentiment. On the other side of that coin, if we waste money needlessly or spend it ineffectively, it could be devastating to many of the same people it was designed to help. Maybe not in the sense that money spent on projects will cause direct harm, but in the sense that more effective uses of the money were passed up in favor of something bogus. 

It's really one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't type of scenarios. I can see both sides of the argument and can empathize with both. I tend to lean towards working with O&G industry AND alternative energy....be they green, nuclear, perpetual motion machines, etc. What I'm against is sensationalism to drive an agenda for AGW and I'm against the demonization of fossil fuels and all the industry involved in it. It seems like we should be looking to work towards a solution that benefits everyone. 

Ranting: perhaps part of my problem is I'm pretty fascinated with electric cars and I frequently read articles about them. In a sadly obvious and with no apologies kind of style, many of these publications are HEAVILY biased against all things fossil fuels. Theyll say crazy things like "driving an electric car also gives you the peace of mind that you're not killing millions with deadly polutants".  I'll try to find the exact article I'm thinking of, but that's pretty close. Stuff like that drives me crazy.

Many of the investments to reduce fossil fuel usage are cash positive so even if Climate change was not happening there is a benefit in doing this because it also addresses local air pollution issues, resource depletion, and energy security for countries which are net importers

At a Micro level and  looking at some of my recent works on our new house. 

DIY upgrade of roof insulation - 30% annual return on investment

Replacement of Halogen bulbs with LED's - 75% annual return on investment

2020 plans

Replacement of Boiler - 20% ROI

DIY solar water Heating Project 12% ROI

All better than 1-2% returns on cash in the bank. 

--------------------

Utility scale onshore wind and solar is now at parity with fossil fuel and in many locations cheaper. 

 

[PE Scott + 563]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

Many of the investments to reduce fossil fuel usage are cash positive so even if Climate change was not happening there is a benefit in doing this because it also addresses local air pollution issues, resource depletion, and energy security for countries which are net importers

At a Micro level and  looking at some of my recent works on our new house. 

DIY upgrade of roof insulation - 30% annual return on investment

Replacement of Halogen bulbs with LED's - 75% annual return on investment

2020 plans

Replacement of Boiler - 20% ROI

DIY solar water Heating Project 12% ROI

All better than 1-2% returns on cash in the bank. 

--------------------

Utility scale onshore wind and solar is now at parity with fossil fuel and in many locations cheaper. 

 

Oh absolutely, I think all those thing you mentioned are great for you and I applaud your efforts. I too have all LED bulbs, 2×8 exterior walls, high efficiency appliances, etc. No reason not to do things like that to reduce energy usage if for no other reason than to save money.

As wind and solar go, they absolutely have their place. No argument.

Just for the sake of comparison though, instead of investment in wind or solar farms let's pretend a massive investment was made to enable 100% of natural gas to make it to a point of use, most of it being directed to energy production in net zero facilities like this one built in Houston:

Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/31/net-zero-natural-gas-plant-the-game-changer/amp/

A bunch of these spread around the Permian and connected to the grid could provide all sorts of cheap power. As much as we're pumping out of the area, I'm sure there's some room somewhere to pump some CO2 back in. Either way, we were going to burn the gas and release greater amounts of pollutants into the air by flaring it anyway. We might as well use what we have instead of wasting it. 

In addition, these wouldn't be particularly large or cover vast areas of ground. They could produce electricity 100% of the time. Perhaps the water produced could be utilized in frac operations or even agricultural uses if clean enough. There are ways to be environmentally conscious by modern definition while embracing our abundant and inexpensive natural resources.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Oh absolutely, I think all those thing you mentioned are great for you and I applaud your efforts. I too have all LED bulbs, 2×8 exterior walls, high efficiency appliances, etc. No reason not to do things like that to reduce energy usage if for no other reason than to save money.

As wind and solar go, they absolutely have their place. No argument.

Just for the sake of comparison though, instead of investment in wind or solar farms let's pretend a massive investment was made to enable 100% of natural gas to make it to a point of use, most of it being directed to energy production in net zero facilities like this one built in Houston:

Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/31/net-zero-natural-gas-plant-the-game-changer/amp/

A bunch of these spread around the Permian and connected to the grid could provide all sorts of cheap power. As much as we're pumping out of the area, I'm sure there's some room somewhere to pump some CO2 back in. Either way, we were going to burn the gas and release greater amounts of pollutants into the air by flaring it anyway. We might as well use what we have instead of wasting it. 

In addition, these wouldn't be particularly large or cover vast areas of ground. They could produce electricity 100% of the time. Perhaps the water produced could be utilized in frac operations or even agricultural uses if clean enough. There are ways to be environmentally conscious by modern definition while embracing our abundant and inexpensive natural resources.

Natural Gas is a good transition fuel but it still produces Co2 and NOX (as a local air pollutant). Not sure as to the economics of carbon capture unless its being used for EOR. 

I'd like to have seen more gas used in Combined heat and power applications, at least  in commercial applications . Seems daft that we burn it and 40% of the energy (heat) is wasted. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

22 hours ago, NickW said:

The past predictions ( a few below) appear to be broadly comparable to the observations to date

 

 

 

To quote my father, "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut."  In the vernacular of statistics, your error is called survivorship bias. This is why I chose my words carefully and said climate "scientists" must consistently make accurate predictions.  "Consistently" means their success rate must be such that, at an absolute bare minimum, there's at least a 95%* probability their successes are due to skill and not due to random chance.

Calculating success rates is especially important because it combats fraud.  Let's take a second look at that comic I posted:

Scott Adams addressed the risk of fraud in the 6th panel: "We put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us."  Scott is pointing out two things:
1)  Scientists know that if they perform enough experiments, they'll eventually obtain a positive result.  This is true even of false hypotheses. 
2)  Scientists frequently - and unethically - use this fact to advance their careers, their ideologies, and their pet projects. 
If that doesn't make sense, I'd recommend reading Jordan Ellenberg's, "How Not to Be Wrong".  Chapter 9, "The International Journal of Haruspicy", is particularly relevant. 

How can we know whether climate "scientists" are reliable?  A decent start would be to look at every climate model ever published so we can determine:
1)  The variance of their predictions
2)  Their success rate in predicting climate phenomena
3)  Which factors consistently led to accurate predictions.  E.g. was it CO2 or, as @PE Scott pointed out, aerosols?  Or was it just the sun? 
4)  Which "scientists" consistently produced accurate results in statistically significant quantities. 
#4 is particularly useful.  If we can figure out which "scientists" predict accurately, we'll know which should be listened to and which should be prosecuted for fraud. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Minor edit to phrasing; no change in meaning.

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

To quote my father, "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut."  In the vernacular of statistics, your error is called survivorship bias. This is why I chose my words carefully and said climate "scientists" must consistently make accurate predictions.  "Consistently" means their success rate must be such that, at an absolute bare minimum, there's at least a 95%* probability their successes are due to skill and not due to random chance.

Calculating success rates is especially important because it combats fraud.  Let's take a second look at that comic I posted:

Scott Adams addressed the risk of fraud in the 6th panel: "We put that data into dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us."  Scott is pointing out two things:
1)  Scientists know that if they perform enough experiments, they'll eventually obtain a positive result.  This is true even of false hypotheses. 
2)  Scientists frequently - and unethically - use this fact to advance their careers, their ideologies, and their pet projects. 
If that doesn't make sense, I'd recommend reading Jordan Ellenberg's, "How Not to Be Wrong".  Chapter 9, "The International Journal of Haruspicy", is particularly relevant. 

How can we know whether climate "scientists" are reliable?  A decent start would be to look at every climate model ever published so we can determine:
1)  The variance of their predictions
2)  Their success rate in predicting climate phenomena
3)  Which factors consistently led to accurate predictions.  E.g. was it CO2 or, as @PE Scott pointed out, aerosols?  Or was it just the sun? 
4)  Which "scientists" consistently produced accurate results in statistically significant quantities. 
#4 is particularly useful.  If we can figure out which "scientists" predict accurately, we'll know which should be listened to and which should be prosecuted for fraud. 

The main reason for Hansens high forcing scenario to be way above the trend line is that he couldn't reasonably predict in 1988 the impact of the rapid reduction in certain refrigerant gases following the Montreal Protocol in 1989. His model assumed high growth rates of freon gases. This factor has nothing to do with natural variability in the climate (sun, ocean currents etc) but an economic / technological change. other factor may have been assuming the + effects of increasing coal burn but not the - factors caused by sulphur aersols over east Asia. Also the Russians did a very good job of plugging methane leaks from their Siberian gas fields in the 1990's

We know the sun is a constant - its variability is so minor it is insignificant in driving change. 

What are the variables which make this a complex situation to calculate and might explain the variation in predictions which are broadly correct in that the world is getting warmer with some divergence in the predictions as to at what rate. 

CO2 emissions+

Methane +

N20 +

Refrigerant Gases +

Sulphur Aerosols -

Carbon aerosols +

Changing cloud cover + & -

Changing Albedo + & - but largely + as glaciers recede

Influences on ocean currents +&-

Changing salinity +&-

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by NickW

[PE Scott + 563]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Natural Gas is a good transition fuel but it still produces Co2 and NOX (as a local air pollutant). Not sure as to the economics of carbon capture unless its being used for EOR. 

I'd like to have seen more gas used in Combined heat and power applications, at least  in commercial applications . Seems daft that we burn it and 40% of the energy (heat) is wasted. 

You should read that article I linked and how they're pulling it off. It claims that by using purified oxygen vs regular ol' air, the combustion results in primarily CO2 and water at sufficiently high pressure to generate electricity. This makes sense, if only O2 and CH4 are present during combustion, there are a limited number of resultant products. 

The rub I see with this is making sure your NG is clean enough. It's not like that's something that's hard to do, it just adds cost that haven't been addressed in this article.

Also of course, what do we do with all the CO2? Pumping it in the ground is great and all, but it would be better if we could develop other industrial processes to use and sequester CO2. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by PE Scott

[NickW + 2,714]

46 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

You should read that article I linked and how they're pulling it off. It claims that by using purified oxygen vs regular ol' air, the combustion results in primarily CO2 and water at sufficiently high pressure to generate electricity. This makes sense, if only O2 and CH4 are present during combustion, there are a limited number of resultant products. 

The rub I see with this is making sure your NG is clean enough. It's not like that's something that's hard to do, it just adds cost that haven't been addressed in this article.

Also of course, what do we do with all the CO2? Pumping it in the ground is great and all, but it would be better if we could develop other industrial processes to use and sequester CO2. 

I had thought before that if we got large scale electroylsis going, utilising surplus renewable power then that would provide a big supply of o2. If natural gas can be burned in a turbine with pure oxygen the end products of water and CO2 are very easy to separate and you have a clean supply of CO2 to bury. 

[Hotone + 412]

On 11/26/2019 at 4:35 PM, PE Scott said:

This article really says it all.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

It's not a long read. I can mostly agree with this argument. Where I won't outright deny that humanity has contributed to global warming, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be in some instances and I'm uncertain of the actual contribution CO2 has when compared to the unknown number of other factors. As the author points out here, the alarmist rhetoric typically drives me further away from the AGW narrative because it is so baseless. If the point of money being invested in alternative green energy is really to save human lives, it could be better spent many different ways. I'd propose that the major suppliers and beneficiaries of renewable energies care less about facts than they do about subsidies and market share though, so the circus continues. 

Anyhow, I'll prepare myself now to be educated on why this is all wrong. For the sake of fair discussion though, please refrain from baseless attacks on intelligence based on someone's writing ability or choice of words. If the message isn't clear, ask them to clarify and make an effort to understand their point of view so you can refute it accordingly if you see fit. Have fun and happy trolling!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/climate/ocean-acidification-climate-change.html

Our oceans are losing oxygen

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 12/11/2019 at 5:29 AM, NickW said:

The main reason for Hansens high forcing scenario to be way above the trend line is that he couldn't reasonably predict in 1988 the impact of the rapid reduction in certain refrigerant gases following the Montreal Protocol in 1989.

Nonsense. Or are you now claiming he was talking about all trace gases? In other words CO2 is not a culprit? Scientific analysis here

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Nonsense. Or are you now claiming he was talking about all trace gases? In other words CO2 is not a culprit? Scientific analysis here

You should  link to the actual paper and not pseudoscience because the idiot posting there completely stuffed up the annual CO2 increases which he relied on but you would probably not understand that.

[NickW + 2,714]

19 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Nonsense. Or are you now claiming he was talking about all trace gases? In other words CO2 is not a culprit? Scientific analysis here

I think you will find reference is generally made to Greenhouse gases meaning the cumulative total of Greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, CH4, N20, Freons) weighted by the relative radiative forcing potential. 

Its in this area where Hansen made some over calculations. Along with not predicting two factors driven by political moves which significantly reduced the growth of Freon gases and CH4 in the atmosphere. 

The above made scenario A an over prediction but Scenario B (Linear growth - BAU) is pretty much what has happened subject to bit of year to year variation up until now.