I guess it is you who just can’t stop yourself.
OK, above is the last paragraph of what you just posted,
This intentional depletion of sulfur aerosols is something I mentioned, with concern, a few days ago here. Dovetails with all the news about attempts to replace fuels with ammonia, sails, etc.
So is Hansen’s latest issue a “conspiracy theory”?
Or does he have a legitimate point?
This is you, telling the truth, like me.
Maybe you’re coming around after all.
Just when you were seeming hopeless…
What I posted about the Gulf Stream is mainstream news, as of the last few days.
And what I posted about the cause of the current ice age is scientific fact, as best understood.
@Windy_Skies is correct. You are consumed by conspiracy theories and have lost track of reality on this one.
Facing a situation with lots of uncertainty you seem to be cherry picking nuggets of information that suit you. If you can’t handle a scientist saying there are several possible outcomes and high uncertanties, you should stick to accepting the overall conclusion that everyone outside conspiracy theory circles by now agree upon:
Climate change is real and is causing great damage now and even more in near future.
That is really everything that has to be said on this subject.
The odds of the opposite (climate change is not man made, or climate change will have net positive or neutral consequences) it virtually zero
I dont care if that makes you depressed or whatever, Im not going to live my life with my head stuck in the sand.
Are we climate experts? Not me, anyway. So I avoid giving opinions on things I don’t know. You can always quote so-and-so, but that’s pointless if you don’t know how to cut your own meat.
Actually I am somewhat of a climate expert, just as I am somewhat of a wind energy expert. I grew up studying the current ice age and in particular the local effects of our recent glacial cycle in the Great Lakes, Finger Lakes area of upstate NY. I went to a special summer camp where we toured the state, examining all the geological evidence, day after day. One thing that stuck with me was a shale streambed where you could light a natural gas spring with a lighter and it would sit there and burn. Just a crack in the rocks in the side of a creek-bed. I was in fifth grade then. I attended special classes at our local museum, with a new (at the time) planetarium. I was steeped in science. By the time I finished high school, I probably knew more science than most people will ever learn. 40 years later, we just barely start to hear about a huge amount, hundreds of years worth, of natural gas in that same area, just waiting to be utilized. I already knew about it before we had electronic calculators.
What Hansen is saying has been WELL KNOWN for AT LEAST 20-30 years, ever since it was recognized that sulfur from volcanoes could lower temps by a degree or two, for a time. Since then, discussions of what is today referred to as “terraforming” have always included the idea of injecting these sulfur compounds into the atmosphere to encourage cooler temps, and the fact that it is accomplished today by burning bunker fuels in ships has been recognized as long as I can remember. Rumors of “Bill Gates”, and secret projects to add such compounds, and others, to lower temps, have been circulating for at least a decade. So, none of this is “news”. The only thing that is “news” is one of the “annointed ones” finally admits that efforts to clean the air are causing warming. The rest of us already knew this.
And diverging over into cut-pasting a diatribe about “mass extinction” is just typical “changing the subject” from those who are incapable of having a discussion about the climate. The reason for the reduction in species is habitat loss from deforestation, and in the cases where this deforestation is carried out for firewood, fossil fuels for cooking and heating are the answer to PRESERVING species.
Coral reefs: Coral reefs are a temporary phenomenon, found in very warm, relatively shallow waters. Warmer waters would tend to expand areas available for coral growth. Coral was recently measured as healthy, at a max level. They are found in shallow waters on continental shelves, which were DRY 12,000 years ago. There is no reason to panic about coral. The geological record shows corals will always grow back when conditions merit, and during a glacial cycle, the available shallow habitat on continental shelves is reduced. Even the great fishing off the coast of New England did not exist 12,000 years ago, since it was all dry land. Coral reefs are merely a misguided emotion-laden talking point.
Rather than being accused by a blanket statement of being “scientifically illiterate”, I will once again challenge Wind-roid to give an actual example of anything I say that is not true. Just because it is over your head, doesn’t mean it’s not valid information.
And the whole conclusion of the statement Wind-roid has cut-pasted, that there are so many inter-related factors, it is all hard to sort out, is true. No one person can say what will happen next, nor why. A change in ocean currents could throw everything we think we know out the window.
A simple look at previous temps and sea levels shows an alarming variance - never a steady state as we are currently enjoying. Nobody knows why we have such steady temps and sea levels right now. is it something we are doing, like causing deserts to form where forests once stood? Nobody knows. So it is an open discussion, and only those too timid or frail in their indoctrination are afraid to admit it or discuss it. Temps could be about to grow way warmer, or WAY WAY colder, driven by natural effects we are barely aware of, if at all, and there is nothing any0one can do about it. That is just the simple facts as we know them, or DON’T know them, as the case may be.
The fact that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas - yes that is “a little science”, leaving out water vapor, insolation, and so many other factors. To hinge on that single factor is “single-factor analysis”, which can easily lead to wrong conclusions.
It is like the people promoting hydrogen a energy storage - “a little science” - all they know is H+H+O = water, leaving out all the compounded inefficiencies of electrolysis, compression, and returning the energy put in by a fuel cell or combustion. Doesn’t stop them - they know one teeny scientific fact, and are happy to ignore all the other derivative facts that make hydrogen the worst method of energy storage ever commonly discussed, which combine to ruin hydrogen as energy storage. Nope, they think they are changing the world. Meanwhile, hydrogen returns maybe 20% of the energy input, IF YOU ARE LUCKY. Imagine charging your phone and when you unplug it, it says “20% charged”. That’s hydrogen. Never gonna catch on. Just a bad idea. The single fact that you can make it from water is not enough to save it.
Around here, we have seen something like seven new gasoline stations built in the last couple of years. Popping up everywhere. Why? Who knows something we don’t?
South Korea just gave up on their renewables goals and switched to promoting nuclear plants instead, as “low carbon”. It took one day. They look at France and say “it looks workable”. A sudden shift away from the worldwide mandatory opinion of a year ago. Things are always changing.
Today on a Michael Palin documentary from Iraq. The river Tigris is drying after three years of drought. Local officials say 90% farmland can become desert. Blame caused on global warming. @dougselsam your take?
My guess; its not probably due to global warming even though that would be the obvious most likely explanation for most
people
Hello Tallak: From what I remember on this specific issue, is that upstream users are diverting the water from the former fertile crescent and taking it for their own use. That’s without looking it up.
That’s where the problem lies.
See. You have an explanation that you go for that does not include global warming. Though in the documentary global warming was called out as the cause.
I realise a single thing like this is no proof. But there seems to be many of these popping up the last years. Diverting water can not anyways explain lack of rain. I think only chance can explain three years of drought, then you have global warming that may have affected the odds of this happening.
Occam’s Razor, also known as the principle of parsimony, is a philosophical and scientific principle that suggests the simplest explanation is often the most likely or preferred one. In other words, when faced with multiple competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest assumptions and entities is usually the most reasonable and should be preferred until further evidence suggests otherwise. It is a useful tool in problem-solving and scientific reasoning.
Here is another current issue, wildfires in Greece. Again, Occam’s Razor dictates that global warming is an inportant factor.
In its latest review of the science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changefound that heat-induced fire weather in southern Europe will increase by 14% if the planet heats by 2.5C. Current policies put it on track for 2.7C.
Here’s a recent article from the American CNN.
This represents mainstream thinking by now. If your opinion deviates much from this, you are on the fringes. And on this one, a thousand flies are not actually wrong. Most times a thousand flies know better than the one fly
OK I looked it up and I was right:
Turkey, Syria and Iraq: Conflict over the Euphrates-Tigris | Climate-Diplomacy
Anything else you geniuses need to tell me?
And in case you didn’t notice, ALL “documentaries” connect everything with “climate change” lately - they know where the money is.
Let me explain another one for you: here in Southern California, we had a few dry years lately.
It was allllllllllll about “climate change” - how could anything else be at play? Like the normal variations?
Well this last winter it got wet again, so now it;s all about flooding, and nobody mentions global warming anymore.
Nobody in the U.S. takes CNN seriously.
They became a laughingstock decades ago.
Their viewership is down to nearly zero, except it is still shown in airports, etc., still pretending to be “mainstream”.
It is a fake, contrived “consensus” that doesn’t represent any real person’s thinking.
It really is nothing but sheer ignorant idiocy to tell anyone they need to agree with whatever crap CNN is putting out. Laughable. Nice try.
As a science person, and of course not at all scientifically illiterate or ignoring observations that go against any preset conclusions, what are your hypotheses about global warming?
Here are mine: [1] greenhouse gases trap heat from solar radiation, [2] greenhouse gases have risen very much in a short time due to the burning of fossil fuels, [3] this is bad because it is causing a rapid change in the environment and is a component of the Human impact on the environment - Wikipedia which makes it a contributor to the Holocene extinction - Wikipedia The rising quickly is significant because species that could potentially survive if the changes were more gradual or in the absence of other stressors now are much less able to.
These are testable hypotheses. You have to start from those as otherwise you can just continue finding things that agree with your worldview, and ignoring things that don’t.
1 Like
Do you not find it worrying Doug that You’ve gone a bit mainstream?
Could you possibly be susceptible to crowd-think?
It’s easier to trash than to hear and listen to the other sides viewpoint. How long since you were last able to press the CNN (not that I would) button?
It’s strange this discussion about the climate, quoting CNN, Wikipedia or whatever. I don’t think CNN is a source for those who want to understand the climate, and perhaps everything else for that matter. On this point I agree with Doug: many Western media, starting with the official print media in France, have lost about their credibility.
Anyone who wants to give lessons about the climate (which I don’t) one way or the other, should start by reading the work of scientists, for example https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Judith-Curry and others.
Science is not based on consensus, but on facts. It is established through a contradictory process.
1 Like
Like I said, stealing water does not explain three years of drought?
Thats just untrue. Both wildfires and floods are connected to global warming. Global warming affects the frequency and severity of such things
What is a better alternative in US media. Dont say Fox, which actually is a laughing stock