- Sep 24, 2017 at 11:42 am #3492943
For awhile now, I’ve been following a couple of sources that have been a bit skeptical of the mainstream consensus facts and figures related to global warming. One in particular did a video on how it appeared that the data was being blatantly fudged and that there wasn’t as much of an increase in temps as was being constantly declared.
Well, this was all very “conspiracy theory” until very recently when a paper from the very folks who brought us <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>CLIMATE CHANGE</span> to begin with, recently said that after reviewing the meta data more carefully, that essentially they had make a mistake and over estimated by 50%. It is not an exaggeration to say that this paper has rocked the scientific community, and even more so, the mainstream media.
Here’s a 5 minute video putting it into holistic context:
As an aside, the couple of sources I mentioned above about following, are not right wing, conservative sources that don’t care about the Earth and humanity in a more broad way btw. They very much do care about all the above (and aren’t right wing etc), but they are hyper analytical and skeptical (in the true and rare sense), as well as holistic thinkers/perceivers and care more about truth than authority and popular opinion or commonly accepted paradigms.
Point being, we still need to clean up our messes and reduce pollution, whatever the CO2 and temperature case is or isn’t. There are direct health effects of pollution that are immediate and very worrying/troubling. I go out of my way, to do my own little part to cut down on this, such as eating primarily vegan, eating local when I can, driving a small, fuel efficient car, not being an uber consumer, etc Granted, I’m also very acutely aware that my individual contribution compared to factories and industry is but a tiny, tiny drop in the large bucket.Sep 24, 2017 at 11:45 am #3492945
“Well, this was all very “conspiracy theory” until very recently when a paper from the very folks who brought us CLIMATE CHANGE to begin with,”
To be more accurate, this should be changed to carbon budget pushers.Sep 24, 2017 at 2:07 pm #3492965
I think this just shows how complicated are the factors that affect the earth’s climate. If they knew to within 50% that would be pretty good.
Sometimes they come out with a story that says there is more of an effect than they predicted.
What we should do is study this with more intensity and take easy actions to reduce CO2 emissions, like windmills are now actually cheaper than other methods of electricity production so we should do more of that. Like you said, we need to reduce pollution regardless of CO2.
I don’t think this article invalidates other articles. And the $50 billion industry of climate research (taking their number, I assume it’s actually way less) is tiny compared to the fossil fuel industry.Sep 24, 2017 at 3:50 pm #3492972
MJ HBPL Member
I have no patience for videos, so here’s the paper serving as the basis for the video. The paper is saying that if we actually follow the Paris Accords or do a bit better, global warming won’t get out of control. It is not saying climate change was overestimated, but that, if we actually do it, reducing CO2 emissions is still going to be effective.
Key clause in the abstract:
Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030…
Let’s make sure we do that and hope they’re right.Sep 25, 2017 at 1:43 am #3493045
Follow up video and more necessary context:
Jerry, you have to understand that the huge majority of papers written about climate change, were based on the models that these folks had come up with.
They themselves have said that CO2 cannot account for all the warming and that we may have to look at the Sun, volcanoes, etc. See just above short video for clarification on these points.Sep 25, 2017 at 8:51 am #3493068
another factor is periods of the earth’s orbit and the axis of rotation of the earth, that probably explains a lot. There is no accepted cause for ice ages and little ice ages, but there appears to be periodicity so probably orbit/axis of rotation
Since I opened my big mouth, now, to be respectful I have to watch the second video : )
Those guys aren’t full deniers. They argue we should look at other pollutants also. That actually makes sense.
Burning coal produces mercury, sulfur, and other pollutants. Plus it takes a lot of energy to extract and process it which makes it less efficient. Plus extracting it damages large areas of land. Plus after it’s burned you have this ash left over that can pollute streams when it leaks. Replacing it with renewables and natural gas is better all the way around.
But the main point of those guys seems to be that they claim the 50% error invalidates the whole “industry” of climate science. That’s not true. It’s just they don’t know with any accuracy what the effect will be. The earth’s climate is jut too complex.
The fact they claim $50 billion is spent on climate research is a denier argument.
Another 50% error was the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is half what’s calculated when you factor in all the fossil fuels burned. But then they figured out that the other 50% of the CO2 got absorbed by the ocean. This area of science just isn’t well known right now.Sep 25, 2017 at 9:12 am #3493071
and I don’t buy their argument that since half the temperature increase is due to natural causes, not CO2, we shouldn’t worry about CO2
the natural causes are going to happen regardless
when you add on top of that temperature increase from CO2, the earth will get warmer than it would have
it is not well understood what the effect will be, we better at least take the easy steps to reduce CO2 output
but don’t go crazy, and, for example, get rid of all our cars, that’s probably an over-reaction. Or quit drilling any more oil wells or put in new pipelines.Sep 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm #3493123
Personally speaking Jerry, if I had my way, we’d all go back to living like the North American Native Tribes a lot more. I’ve been concerned about the state of the Earth, it’s health, and our mistreatment of it since I was a little kid. And on a personal, selfish level, being concerned with my body’s own health, I can’t stand living in such a polluted world.
But it’s important to understand that this issue is more complex than many people have painted it (and for so long)–that there are various variables happening simultaneously. This is something that I’ve been intuitively sensing for a long time now, which is why I was initially open minded to some sources which also indicated it was more complex and not just about human produced CO2.
My intuitive hunch has turned out to be looking more accurate now. It would say it’s kind of a “der” that human pollution is contributing some to the overall picture of global climate change, but it’s become so lopsided to that in the mainstream scientific community and also media, that it’s drowned out the voices of other researchers like solar and geological (focused on inner processes like volcanic). To me, that’s a shame and one dimensional, lop sided science. For science to be maximally accurate, it has to be holistic and take into account all the variables. Basically, I have been and am a proponent of balance and integration.
And as mentioned on another thread, it’s likely that the Sun is heading into a long term Maunder Minimum type cycle. During the height of that, once the stored ocean energy/heat has dissipated some, believe me, people will be quickly forgetting about global warming and people will be severely complaining about global cooling.
Especially if a super volcano also happens to go off during that period (interestingly, there has been some research that indicates there is more volcanic activity during quieter solar periods). There is one in Italy called Campe Filagre (spelling?) that has been showing signs of instability and revamping/recharging.
Then there is Yellowstone, which according to it’s past cyclic activity is a bit over due or at least approaching near that for a major eruption, and it just so happens of late that there has been the longest continuing earthquake swarm there since measuring has began. We know very little about super volcanic eruptions and the signs/indications of same. This is one of those not if, but when kind of things.Sep 25, 2017 at 1:50 pm #3493134
Todd StoughBPL Member
Justin you should go visit an old cemetary, a really old one. Take note of all the children and young women buried there. Lots and lots of kids died early and many women giving birth. Perhaps you don’t have kids yet but I’ll tell you it sure made me appreciate what we have today.
If we all went back to being hunters and gatherers we’d kill off all the animals in the first few years and them most of us would starve to death.Sep 25, 2017 at 2:12 pm #3493142
I don’t think volcanoes explain the warming we’ve seen because we would have noticed them. There haven’t been any big ones recently : )
Yellowstone super volcano would be catastrophic, wipe out eastern U.S. But that happens every 700,000 years and it’s been 630,000 years since the last one, so probably don’t need to worry about that.
There was a Tambora eruption in 1815. The largest known. It effected global temperature but it was only for a few years. So, for a few years, global warming would be cancelled out, but then we’d be back to global warming.
The causes of ice ages is not well known. It probably has something to do with the axis of rotation of the earth. That would last a long time. It’s going to take a long time to get rid of the CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere. Maybe those could cancel. But we don’t understand either one of those so a bad idea to use that to rationalize burning fossil fuels.
The North American Indians required a lot of land to survive. Given the 7 billion people on the earth, that won’t work. We have to live in big cities.
Before fossil fuels, people built houses so they faced south for warmth. Warm areas had high ceilings with the right windows for ventilation to stay cool. Now, we ignore all that because energy is so cheap. We could go back to techniques like that. It would help if we quit all the subsidies for fossil fuels.
We could grow plants on roof tops in the big cities. It would cool the city. We could produce a fair amount of food, especially stuff like produce. That would save a lot of energy transporting the produce from far away.
I think we can learn from natives, and other peoples a few hundred years ago and adapt them to today’s situation.
You have been sucked into following chaff again : )Sep 26, 2017 at 12:15 am #3493231
Todd, I said “more like”, not completely like/the same. I’ve been actively involved with intentional communities and have seen first hand communities that are mostly sustainable and low impact.
In any case, it’s certainly not likely that the majority of people would collectively choose to move in that direction anytime soon. However, if there was a collapse, people would be forced to and many people would likely die within the first couple of years.
I don’t think most of us appreciate just how fragile this house of cards of civilization is currently (and will be until there is a major overhaul the electrical grid system). All it would take is one very large/pwerful and directly earth faced solar flare and it would knock out most of the electrical grid and this would send us back to pre industrial revolution type living, at a time when many don’t know how to “live off the land”.
Perhaps people are not aware, but in the last few weeks, the Sun released some massive flares that if they had been directly facing earth, they could have caused such problems.
Speaking of which, if people doubt there is some kind of higher power and they want clear suggestive evidence of same, look up “Earth facing Solar quiet”. It’s something that the Space Weather/Suspicious Observers team has been observing and talking about for many years. Nobody can explain it from a materialistic and scientific viewpoint.
Essentially, beyond chance, every time the Sun releases these massive flares that could cause major, collapse type problems on earth, it always happens when the Earth is not directly in line. The Sun also has this general, unusual tendency to be more quiet on the side that’s facing the Earth, even though the Sun rotates fully in about 25 days (somewhat slowly, and so parts of the Sun are directly facing towards Earth’s direction for long enough periods that when the Sun starts getting sun spots or unstable areas, it has time to fully develop while facing the Earth).
It’s really a very interesting and uncanny phenomenon. It’s almost like there is some kind of higher power that’s keep the Sun in check on the side that’s directly facing the Earth. Since humans have come to so depend on electricity as a fundamental basis and prop of our civilization, there have been a number of potential kill shot type flares, but never directly at the Earth’s direction.Sep 26, 2017 at 12:52 am #3493232
“I don’t think volcanoes explain the warming we’ve seen because we would have noticed them. There haven’t been any big ones recently : )”
Jerry, the majority of the Earth is covered in oceans. Oceans are one of the least explored space on the Earth. The more we have explored the ocean, the more underwater volcanic venting we have found. Volcanic activity above and below water often tends to be different. Under water, what is more common, is direct magma venting, rather than gas building up to an explosive crescendo once pressure has built up enough, which happens more above surface.
Can you state categorically that the Earth hasn’t been warmed at all by such processes? What is causing the changes in the Earth’s magnetic field? Isn’t the magnetic field directly tied to the independently rotating inner core and surrounding layer? If there is a change in the magnetic field, could that mean a corresponding change in the core and/or layer that surrounds same?
Why in 1998 did two research teams independently discover that there was some kind of major mass movement talking place within the Earth, and that in this year, the Earth began to bulge more at the equator? Why was it around this same time frame that both the movement and the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field really ramped up in speed?
You’re not looking big picture enough, because you’re focused on mainstream media and CO2 only. There are other massive changes going on which have nothing to do with human pollution, but seem to occur somewhat cyclically over long periods of time.
Hence, it’s QUITE possible that whatever internal changes affecting the magnetic field and internal mass movements of the Earth, might be connected to a process that may also be connected to and causing increased heat venting in the weak areas of the crust, the majority of which are underwater and not visible and neither easily or completely known.
“Yellowstone super volcano would be catastrophic, wipe out eastern U.S. But that happens every 700,000 years and it’s been 630,000 years since the last one, so probably don’t need to worry about that.”
If you look at known major eruptions, the cycle ranges from 600,000 to 800,000. However, we don’t know if it will stay in that cycle or not. Nor do we know about all events, major or minor.
From USGS, see: “Three extremely large explosive eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone in the past 2.1 million years with a recurrence interval of about 600,000 to 800,000 years. More frequent eruptions of basalt and rhyolite lava flows have occurred before and after the large caldera-forming events. For example, scientists have identified at least 27 different rhyolite lava flows that erupted after the most recent caldera eruptions, about 640,000 years ago, from vents inside the caldera. The most recent was about 70,000 years ago. Many of these eruptions were separated in time by several tens of thousands of years. Because the evidence of earlier eruptions may have been either buried or destroyed, we do not really know how often the volcano has actually erupted.”
Above excerpted from the following site:
What I will say, is that any long continuing earthquake swarm in this area, is definitely something to pay attention to. These can indicate gas and/or magma movement, and/or pressure buildup. I follow a person who regularly checks the various gas charts, earthquakes, land rise and sinking, and other data related to yellowstone. But nobody really knows enough to say what the exact signs will definitely be or how long they will last, should an eruption be probable in the near to nearish future.Sep 26, 2017 at 8:49 am #3493265
yeah, Yellowstone is very interesting
another indication of impending eruption is the land raises. They have started looking at that carefully and have observed this but no way to interpret it. The water level goes up on one side of the lake,and down on the other, indicating the land has risen on one side of the lake
I wonder if they could drill wells to release the pressure without having a super volcano? Have smaller eruptions? Or could this trigger a super volcano that otherwise wouldn’t have happened for thousands of years?
there are all these basalt flows in eastern Oregon/Washington/Idaho. And they leaked over to the ocean at places. Those all came from the Yellowstone mantle plume. Could that happen again?
But, if it happens every 600,000 to 800,000 years, then there’s a 0.5% chance of happening over 1000 years, so there are bigger risks to worry about…Sep 26, 2017 at 8:51 am #3493267
I think if there was a volcano big enough to affect climate much, even if under the ocean, we’d notice it
we are just beginning to notice that there are eruptions happening under the ocean, but they’re not huge onesSep 26, 2017 at 9:14 am #3493273
there was a solar flare (coronal mass ejection) in 1859. The only electronics we had were telegraphs, which were damaged. But that technology is much more resistant to electrical spikes than what we have today, and there were just a few of them so fairly easily replaced. If one happened today I don’t know we’d go back to pre electronics days, but it would not be good.
I agree the media are sheep. Because they’re humans and humans are sheep. Evolutionarily, there must be an advantage to being this way. There are many problems we need to deal with in addition to CO2. Another one is an asteroid/comet striking the earth. Or too many people on the earth. Technology has some major risks. Political power has shifted excessively to wealthy so there’s a risk of the masses revolting creating chaos. Obesity…
Still, CO2 is a good problem to worry about because it’s totally man made and easy to fix. And there’s a delay from when the CO2 is put into the atmosphere to when the earth stabilizes at a warmer temperature – when it finally becomes clear we have a major problem, it’ll continue to get worse, maybe for 100s of years, we just don’t know.Sep 26, 2017 at 8:47 pm #3493504
Excellent thread Justin. Thank you so much for posting this.Sep 27, 2017 at 9:07 am #3493567
Alexander SBPL Member
I have an applied science degree. Science in any field is never “done” or “finished”. Anyone who tells you that the science of a particular study is wrapped up and done, is trying to sell you something.
At one point in our history the most eminent and peer reviewed scientists known to us, variously agreed that the sun revolves around our earth, that blood does not circulate, that dinosaurs were cold blooded, and that four humors rule the body. This science was not done and neither is climate change of which (like the human central nervous system) we actually understand fairly little.Oct 6, 2017 at 5:37 pm #3495181
Here’s a story about a study that just came out.
“The top 3 meters or so of earth store more carbon than the entire atmosphere and all plants combined.”
When the soil warms, there’s more microbial activity that releases this CO2 which will cause even more warming – positive feedback
“Late last month, scientists from Woods Hole Research Center and Boston University published in Science an analysis of satellite data showing one of the most dramatic turnabouts in recent memory. Long thought of as sponges that suck in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, tropical forests may actually be a source of emissions.”
There is much uncertainty in what we know – sometimes it’s worse than previously thought, sometime less.
Like I’ve said, we should be doing the easy things like more windmills and solar panels because that electricity is about the same cost as fossil fuels, more efficiency, more studying to see how bad this is going to be and what we can do about it. Don’t take actions that are too expensive like shutting down all oil wells, pipelines, giving up our cars,…Oct 6, 2017 at 7:13 pm #3495194
Michael LBPL Member
So we need to wipe out the rainforests….Oct 6, 2017 at 7:18 pm #3495196
No, we need to study it more
It does put doubt on the idea people can offset their CO2 output by setting aside rain forest
But rain forests are good for other reasonsOct 6, 2017 at 8:13 pm #3495202
Michael LBPL Member
Lumber, charcoal, ziplines….?Oct 7, 2017 at 5:48 pm #3495293
“Well, this is awkward: For almost the past four decades, an incredibly rare species of songbird has eluded birdwatchers and scientists, and surveys to learn more about it have come up empty handed. The incredibly frustrating, fruitless search for the Liberian Greenbul gave researchers nightmares since it was first identified and cataloged in the early 1980s, but those who have spent their time hunting for the rare bird just got some brutal news: It never even existed in the first place.”
Those idiot incompetent scientists, can’t get anything right. We should quit listening to them.
Or, maybe reality is just complicated and it takes a while to figure things out…Oct 11, 2017 at 8:29 pm #3496161
“Those idiot incompetent scientists, can’t get anything right. We should quit listening to them.”
If that’s what you got from my posts Jerry, you really weren’t listening or paying attention. Perhaps it’s more a caution of majority, group think than anything else. And to drive home the point that Alexander made earlier–that science and it’s “facts” is an evolving, changing process. Moral of the story–don’t get too attached to a belief system or idea and believe it’s all been figured out.
Dare I add that dark matter is currently meeting it’s demise (a dark end you could say…), while electric universe theory is on the rise?
A belated thanks, Kat.Oct 11, 2017 at 10:20 pm #3496184
“Those idiot incompetent scientists, can’t get anything right. We should quit listening to them.”
If that’s what you got from my posts Jerry, you really weren’t listening or paying attention.”
I was exaggerating. Maybe I could have said it better and maybe I was being a condescending SOB, sorry. But a lot of people cite something the scientists get wrong and then conclude everything else scientists say is wrong. Like the video in the original post. Scientists now think the warming is half as big as they originally thought. That just shows that they don’t know with any accuracy what the effect of the CO2 is. It doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy by China or climate scientists. I agree, the moral of the story is “don’t get too attached to a belief system or idea and believe it’s all been figured out.” Except science is not a belief system – the primary idea is that if new data comes in that contradicts the established ideas, you throw them out and find new ones.
Yeah, that’s interesting about dark matter.
From wikipedia “Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from baryonic matter (ordinary matter such as protons and neutrons), neutrinos and dark energy.
Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.”
So, that’s what’s popular currently for physicists, to resolve the puzzling astronomical observations. Dark matter is just a place holder, it’s not real, they’re trying to find something real to explain the observations. So it’s not much of a prediction to say there will be major new discoveries in the next 4 or 5 years.
Electrons have mass so if there were a bunch of previously unknown electrons that could explain it.
I like the Poe inspired rhymes : )Oct 11, 2017 at 11:00 pm #3496192
“Except science is not a belief system – the primary idea is that if new data comes in that contradicts the established ideas, you throw them out and find new ones.”
That’s supposed to be what it is, and yet in practice it’s not always that. Careers are built on “established ideas”, funding is given to certain ideas more than others, etc. Fear, societal pressures, human emotions and attachments get involved. Bias is introduced.
There is also the human tendency that as people get older, they get more set in their mind set, beliefs. The apple carts are usually over turned by younger folks with more open and/or flexible minds and/or psyches.
Anyways, while I’m somewhat critical of some mainstream paradigms, I do very much respect and think the true scientific approach is necessary. If this could somehow could walk hand in hand with an increasing purity of human psyche and intentions in a more collective way, then a lot of the mess could be reduced. But that’s another big challenge in and of itself. Do think we are moving in the right direction for the most part and in a more collective sense.
The good news, though it’s not always apparent on the surface, Love and all that it implies–ethics, responsibility, empathy, compassion, etc is on the rise and it’s severe lack is becoming less strong–except in certain circles.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.