Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[Hugo Farnsworth]

I can see no replies to my post about "Earth Orbits & Ice Ages". Here's a teaser: "this is a most extraordinary time in our planet's history, because you can walk to the bottom of the stratosphere..."

Catching up on the thread and giving you folks an assessment:
BS, sorry, you are wrong. Dr Evil, you are right.

Why? I worked in the oil patch in my early career throughout the 70s and 80s. In the late 80s, people doing earth science in the business were arguing whether or not we would run out of air (global warming) or oil (peak oil was 2008). Though Exxon tried to hush up what they had found out about CO2 and climate change, it spread like wildfire amongst geologists and geophysicists and was a great topic for discussion during electric surveys and other dead time on a drilling location. At this point in time, it was an interesting discussion, a problem needing a solution seemingly far in the future.

For the record, at that time I thought burning coal, oil, and gas would not appreciably change the climate. I was convinced man's input was a pittance compared to a large volcanic eruption, for example. On the back of a napkin, a geophysicist working for the largest oil company in the world showed me otherwise with some math, and this was the early nineties. Today, man's f*ckery with Earth is equivalent to a large asteroid strike. We are in the midst of irreversible and abrupt climate change. It is the sixth mass extinction now.

[Anecdotal, but convincing]. I grew up in SW Louisiana and there used to be a lot of flying insects, especially at night. Now, there are nearly none. Driving at night in the 80s, one had to clean the windshield every 60 km or so because you could no longer see. Now, one can drive hundreds of km and get a handful of bug hits.

While I subscribe to the "climate change denial for profit" conspiracy, I don't buy the "climate change fix for profit" conspiracy argument for one moment, because fixing climate change ends capitalism as we know it. There is no ROI for a CO2 atmospheric scrubber, only LOI. Our current industrial civilization cannot even begin to afford the cost of fixing this mess. We wrecked daddy's Cadillac and our weekly allowance won't pay for it.

The arguments amongst well informed climate scientists are ones of the degree of the damage and how their models reflect it, but not the state (is it getting warmer?) or case (is it us?) of the current situation.

[Elihu]

not in the way you imagine. only less government rollback of government and climate immediately improves in all the ways you don't imagine. not increase in government. decrease in government. stasis is an illusion too so there is something at stake

[Belligerent Savant]

.
The problem Hugo is there have been historical patterns of even more extreme weather fluctuations in previous periods of history, both before human 'industry' and also well before humans existed.

Back of the napkin calculations are unfortunately not a valid standard for proving anything, certainly not a faulty notion that human-based CO2 levels impact climate.

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Modern warming is very similar to the warming that occured in the early 18th century (1695-1735) with ZERO change in atmospheric CO2. It's all within natural variability. Read more here:

https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/u ... ed-warming

(Clearly, the ~2 degrees C of warming from 1695 - 1735 as depicted in the above image/chart wasn't caused by any 'engines'/tech enterprise, as this was well before the Industrial Age)


Meanwhile, there are currently 29 volcanoes spewing out 120,000 tonnes of CO₂ a day into the atmosphere, but it’s the human-generated CO2 warming the climate, eh?

And what about solar activity?

[Hugo Farnsworth]

The first slide (England Met Office) clearly demonstrates anthropogenic induced warming, with warming in the late 20th century greatly exceeding the natural Milankovitch warming cycles.
The second slide can be much more clearly understood by watching "Earth Orbits & Ice Ages" on Youtube. Britt shows the global temperature for the last 10 or so glacial cycles trending down (yes, down) as India crashed into the Eurasian plate, creating the Himalayas, causing CO2 levels to plummet. It may be that we now understand how the Earth froze solid at least two times in its deep past.

Man grew up in a glacial minima, currently trending to glacial maxima. We started our experiment with carbon (industrial civilization) just before the Earth was starting to cool, but we had already slightly engineered the climate with clear cutting and agriculture. All of this seems contradictory to both activists and deniers of climate change because we are in a new regime. Deniers, like Willie Soon love to point this out, but he leaves out all the parts that punch holes in his argument. Many climate scientists find it far more alarming that the Earth is warming up instead of cooling down, rather than it simply warming up.

[not on topic] When it comes to aerosol masking, we may have experienced a preview last year's summer. Some scientists speculate that reducing the emissions of global shipping may have greatly affected ocean temperatures. If verified, that's truly bad news. It means that as we responsibly close coal power plants, reduce the use of kerosene, and transition to renewables, global temperatures would increase significantly. We may be holding a wolf by the ears.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Alas, there is nothing in the first image that showcase anthropogenic factors as a lone or even primary factor.
Of course, as with many things, one may draw all manner of subjective inferences based on interpretation of data. And so there will be plenty of data points that can affirm anthropogenic factors (and related preset bias), as well as the converse: graphs, datapoints and studies that show other factors (non-anthropogenic) as primary reasons for climate fluctuations.

Over the last several years, I went from subscribing to aspects of anthropogenic factors, to now doubting there is any anthropogenic factor at all in whatever it is we’re experiencing collectively as far as climate fluctuation, especially relative to the history of the Earth.

Natural variability, in short, is where I currently stand on this.

In any event, one thing is perfectly clear: all these ‘green’/‘net zero’ (etc) promotions are exceedingly/egregiously detrimental to the collective, but certainly highly beneficial to a very small subset.

[Elihu]

we cannot control the weather we cannot fix the weather we cannot affect the weather. keep government away from the weather.
quit thinking about it quit worrying about it.

[Hugo Farnsworth]

.
Alas, there is nothing in the first image that showcase anthropogenic factors as a lone or even primary factor.
Of course, as with many things, one may draw all manner of subjective inferences based on interpretation of data. And so there will be plenty of data points that can affirm anthropogenic factors (and related preset bias), as well as the converse: graphs, datapoints and studies that show other factors (non-anthropogenic) as primary reasons for climate fluctuations.

Britt demonstrates some of this in his lecture. There are NO fluctuations either in recent history or the deep past (rocks aren't all that great) that is of the magnitude and speed we see today. Because we are at the cusp of a natural fluctuation and we have engineered the climate, the results cannot be separated very easily. It's definitely a sore point.

.
Over the last several years, I went from subscribing to aspects of anthropogenic factors, to now doubting there is any anthropogenic factor at all in whatever it is we’re experiencing collectively as far as climate fluctuation, especially relative to the history of the Earth.

Natural variability, in short, is where I currently stand on this.

I held onto the belief that we could not affect climate due to the magnitude of our contributions, but the geophysicist showed me that it is actually gargantuan. It's tripled since he showed me that.

.
In any event, one thing is perfectly clear: all these ‘green’/‘net zero’ (etc) promotions are exceedingly/egregiously detrimental to the collective, but certainly highly beneficial to a very small subset.

I am unsure if even those would benefit. Green/net zero is a pipe dream because civilization is a heat engine.

[DrEvil]

@BelSav wrote:

The problem Hugo is there have been historical patterns of even more extreme weather fluctuations in previous periods of history, both before human 'industry' and also well before humans existed.

But that's not a problem (or an argument). That's like saying forest fires happened before humans existed, so humans can't be the cause of forest fires today. It makes no sense.

[DrEvil]

Why yes, you do. But, we do have the ability to change the climate

uh no. no we don't

This is objectively wrong.

Here's two examples from recent history: the "pause" between WW2 and the seventies. Temps started going up again when we reduced our emissions of various particulates, mostly sulfur dioxide (notice how you don't hear about acid rain any more? That's why). Then there's the recent uptick after international shipping fuel standards became more stringent in 2020.

Both are cases where we saw an almost immediate effect once we stopped doing what we were doing. Once could be random chance, but twice in a row with identical outcomes? Besides, we already know it works, because it's the exact same thing volcanoes do, so why should the results be any different just because you change the source of the emissions? So yes, we can very much change the climate, and we are.

Or for a more blunt example: do you think the climate would stay exactly as it is if we detonated every nuke we have?

[DrEvil]

.
The problem Hugo is there have been historical patterns of even more extreme weather fluctuations in previous periods of history, both before human 'industry' and also well before humans existed.

Back of the napkin calculations are unfortunately not a valid standard for proving anything, certainly not a faulty notion that human-based CO2 levels impact climate.

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Modern warming is very similar to the warming that occured in the early 18th century (1695-1735) with ZERO change in atmospheric CO2. It's all within natural variability. Read more here:

https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/u ... ed-warming

(Clearly, the ~2 degrees C of warming from 1695 - 1735 as depicted in the above image/chart wasn't caused by any 'engines'/tech enterprise, as this was well before the Industrial Age)

That's only for central England. You can't extrapolate local climate to the whole world. https://xkcd.com/605/

Meanwhile, there are currently 29 volcanoes spewing out 120,000 tonnes of CO₂ a day into the atmosphere, but it’s the human-generated CO2 warming the climate, eh?

That's ~44 million tons of CO2 each year from volcanoes. Humans release ~35000 million tons each year; that's more than twice the annual volcanic emissions every day.

And what about solar activity?

What about it? Its impact is minimal; somewhere around +/- 0.1-0.3C, which leaves 0.7C or more unaccounted* for.

* Unaccounted as in not caused by the sun.

[Elihu]

Both are cases where we saw an almost immediate effect once we stopped doing what we were doing.

I held onto the belief that we could not affect climate due to the magnitude of our contributions, but the geophysicist showed me that it is actually gargantuan. It's tripled since he showed me that.

let's leap from your world over into this one for a minute. you plan to manage the weather (to what end?) by circumscribing the real time behavior of the human race. you'll be beating slaves all day long. for the weather!

with respect to your science these two realms are incompatible. if there is a looming disaster science can see coming, don't be chicken s and turn to politics. Saving the world through slavery is contradictory. they claim that it will be comfortable and that they can do it. but of course no do-overs if they can't. and no refunds either.

so there's two scenarios
one: science indicates death, political solution effects death - Zero chance of survival
two: science indicates death, life goes on - science goes back to drawing board - 50/50 chance of survival

champions of truth and life have joined forces with perhaps the evilest practice humans are involved in today.

Not a good look man

[DrEvil]

Both are cases where we saw an almost immediate effect once we stopped doing what we were doing.

I held onto the belief that we could not affect climate due to the magnitude of our contributions, but the geophysicist showed me that it is actually gargantuan. It's tripled since he showed me that.

let's leap from your world over into this one for a minute. you plan to manage the weather (to what end?) by circumscribing the real time behavior of the human race. you'll be beating slaves all day long. for the weather!

Weather isn't climate. This is pretty fundamental, and if you don't even understand that I'm not sure how much use it will be arguing with you. And how is changing the source of your electricity making you a slave? And no one is talking about managing the weather. The goal is to stop changing the climate in dangerous and unpredictable ways. And sure, I guess you can say that is "managing the weather", in the same way you can "manage a fire" by not pouring any more gasoline on it.

with respect to your science these two realms are incompatible. if there is a looming disaster science can see coming, don't be chicken s and turn to politics. Saving the world through slavery is contradictory. they claim that it will be comfortable and that they can do it. but of course no do-overs if they can't. and no refunds either.

so there's two scenarios
one: science indicates death, political solution effects death - Zero chance of survival
two: science indicates death, life goes on - science goes back to drawing board - 50/50 chance of survival

Everything is politics, and you missed the obvious scenario, which is the one "everyone" wants to happen: stop doing the things that are fucking up our environment. You can drive an EV without becoming a slave. You can have solar panels on your roof and insulation in your walls without becoming a slave.

champions of truth and life have joined forces with perhaps the evilest practice humans are involved in today.

Not a good look man

I would say the same, but I'm honestly not sure what your look even is. I'm basically just replying to my best interpretation of what you're trying to say, because the whole post is borderline incomprehensible.

[Elihu]

a scientist invents gizmos and potions. you go from measuring albedos and parts per billion to social policy. social policy is negation and compulsion. resorting to managing your concentrations and ambients with tools that don't rise above the level of voodoo means, as a "scientist" you have a deep personal conundrum on your hands. before you join the forces of evil, which is legislators, judges, cops, tax collectors, prison guards and executioners, perhaps you should manifest the same scientific motivation to understand human behavior as you have to understanding the weather.

people who view the "problem" from this angle can never be convinced by your current outlook. they've got too much experience with social policy. yes, big government programs have been grafted onto society and they've lived with it and it didn't collapse. But take a look around. Society is already carrying a huge burden. why save us and keep us alive if it's about 24/7 misery? no thanks. if the climate rose up and wiped us out it would be doing us a favor. but no, you'd keep the misery going. no thanks

you're right, everything is politics with this climate debate. and yet you have a foot in both worlds. you cast aspersions on people's character for dissimulating your "science" and then you jump over into the social jungle and say "something needs to be done about these bad actors".

to have any integrity as scientists and enjoy any respect from me, they need to say their peace and then stfU! don't let me see you hanging around with "lawmakers" until you know how it works. at least as good as an internal combustion engine.

[Belligerent Savant]

Theatrics. Very profitable and ‘control’-facilitating theatrics.




https://x.com/MatthewWielicki/status/18 ... 0188229877

[DrEvil]

a scientist invents gizmos and potions. you go from measuring albedos and parts per billion to social policy. social policy is negation and compulsion. resorting to managing your concentrations and ambients with tools that don't rise above the level of voodoo means, as a "scientist" you have a deep personal conundrum on your hands. before you join the forces of evil, which is legislators, judges, cops, tax collectors, prison guards and executioners, perhaps you should manifest the same scientific motivation to understand human behavior as you have to understanding the weather.

people who view the "problem" from this angle can never be convinced by your current outlook. they've got too much experience with social policy. yes, big government programs have been grafted onto society and they've lived with it and it didn't collapse. But take a look around. Society is already carrying a huge burden. why save us and keep us alive if it's about 24/7 misery? no thanks. if the climate rose up and wiped us out it would be doing us a favor. but no, you'd keep the misery going. no thanks

you're right, everything is politics with this climate debate. and yet you have a foot in both worlds. you cast aspersions on people's character for dissimulating your "science" and then you jump over into the social jungle and say "something needs to be done about these bad actors".

to have any integrity as scientists and enjoy any respect from me, they need to say their peace and then stfU! don't let me see you hanging around with "lawmakers" until you know how it works. at least as good as an internal combustion engine.

But the scientists did say their piece and then stfu, and no one cared, so they had to start speaking up to make people pay attention. If your house is on fire you don't send the fire department a polite email to notify them.

before you join the forces of evil, which is legislators, judges, cops, tax collectors, prison guards and executioners, perhaps you should manifest the same scientific motivation to understand human behavior as you have to understanding the weather.

Do you by any chance have fake license plates and a stack of legal documents in the backseat? Perhaps a copy of Atlas Shrugged?

Snark aside, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. Right now I don't know if you simply disagree with the science, or if you think we can't change the climate because God won't let us.