I Have My Window Open

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someday in the not-too-distant future someone will ask “How did we get here and why is the family cat on fire?” and I will produce this post as Exhibit A.

Dude, that's gonna happen regardless of what we do! FACT: Some the star we call the Sun will turn into a Red Giant and fry us all...Until then, why worry about it...
 
Dude, that's gonna happen regardless of what we do! FACT: Some the star we call the Sun will turn into a Red Giant and fry us all...Until then, why worry about it...

Yes, but that's in a billion or so years. Not in my daughter's lifetime, if things keep going the way they are.
 
I have only met one actual climate expert in my life.

Dr William Gray was my neighbor here in Fort Collins, CO. He was professor emeritus of atmospheric science at CSU. We struck up a neighborly friendship as we had both spent time in Detroit, Washington, DC, the military and, of course, Colorado.

He was a very interesting and intelligent man. He developed the model that is still used for hurricane forecasting and was the first to identify the El Niño effect on climate made by currents and water temps. He spent many years in charge of hurricane forecasting in the Atlantic and, in his later career, was very active in climate change discussions - active, but not popular. He accused Al Gore of cutting his funding for not walking lock-step with the call for carbon taxation.

Arguably, at the time of his death, he had spent more time than any other person in the real world study of ocean temps, tropical storms, winds and their effects on climate than any other single researcher.

He remains a very controversial figure in climate change science. I knew him as a real person. I can assure you, he was pretty convincing in his learned opinion on anthropogenic climate change.

He is very well published and easy to research. However, since his writings were not in-step with the climate change movement, you probably never heard of him. You may be doing yourself a disservice by not knowing him if this issue is important to you. It’s always good to know the other side of any issue. Here’s his obit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...nd-climate-change-skeptic-dies-at-86.amp.html
 
Someday in the not-too-distant future someone will ask “How did we get here and why is the family cat on fire?” and I will produce this post as Exhibit A.

Are you prepared to bet your life's savings on dire prognostications coming true? 'cause you'd lose. In the 80s they predicted the new Ice Age coming with just as much conviction as they are predicting everything else now. In 00s, Al Gore predicted a bunch of stuff nearly none of which has actually happened (Al did make a fortune off his prognostications though, thank you very much).

In the meanwhile the models can't model cloud cover or the oceans properly (two of the biggest factors far exceeding the contribution of CO2), and they're only accurate if you select the ones that work retroactively (and fudge data if they still don't fit), yet multi-trillion dollar programs get proposed which we can't even figure out whether they'll help at all, and if they do, then by how much and whether they'll be able to avert the catastrophe. Worse, international law being what it is, other, poorer countries aren't bound by these laws, so emissions tend to just move there, because people want their cheap stuff regardless of the consequences.

I'm a firm believer that the real, actual solution to this problem will not be the one that destroys the world economy in the process, and it will be technological in nature. Probably carbon capture powered by fusion or something like that. Until we have something that's economically viable, so countries will want to switch to it as quickly as possible, you're not going to get traction. The US reduced its emissions recently solely because natural gas is now economically viable here.

Currently, the situation is as follows:

97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d


https://assets.amuniversal.com/97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d
 
Ever try and lose weight? Exercise scientist have multiple different views on how weight loss happens and the popular views on the subject are constantly changing. Every week there is a new "scientific" study that "proves" the beliefs of past exercise scientists wrong.
If scientists cant figure out the best way to do something as easily tested as losing weight how are they to be trusted with something as huge as predicting our effect on the future climate?
My faith in scientists opinions is close to on par with my trust for politicians! They have been proven wrong countless times. I'll believe it when I see it work!
 
Y'all are conflating news articles on science with scientific research.

One targets a grade four reading level, the other does not.
THIS.

This is absolutely accurate; which is one of the (several) reasons why the reading-level of adults has dropped so much over the last 100 years.

Moreover, challenges to (or mere uncertainties within) the relevant research, while important, are often a red herring in our politically charged culture.

After all, in the following formula...
CAGW --therefore--> LILCAPEL
...where,
"CAGW" means "every dire claim made in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming category is correct," and,
"LILCAPEL" means "Let's Implement Lifestyle Changes and Policies Endorsed by Leftists,"

...the really contentious part is everything that starts with the word "therefore."

I think a lot of politically-conservative persons look at the second half of the formula, and in response, feel they need to push back on the first part of the formula.

(Maybe they ought to, maybe not; I'm not going to litigate that here and now.)

But it seems to me that, for any given Policy or Lifestyle Change recommended by CAGW proponents, the case is rarely made that such a policy or change will make any substantive, beneficial difference.

So far as I can tell, the worst CAGW models could be true ...and yet, the best possible response could still be, "keep the economy humming so you can afford to innovate on Gen 4 nuclear."

Maybe.

Regardless, news articles about science aren't science, just as (say) scenes depicting a people-group in a movie aren't that actual people group.

Remember the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect!
 
@iaresee But nobody (including you) reads scientific articles. It's a matter of faith (one way or another) for 99.999% of the people involved. Even though I am a scientist (in unrelated field), and I work as a researcher, and I worry about this subject quite a bit, I still don't read the studies. I can tell you that the way most climate science is done would get you laughed out of the room in e.g. physics. In physics you don't get to retroactively pick the model that works. You make a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis, if it doesn't work your hypothesis was wrong (or you screwed up the experiment) and you keep trying until you find one that's predictive. Real science has the property of falsifiability (in that an experiment can be conceived that could show the hypothesis is not true), and climate science does not. You don't get to make 30 contradictory hypotheses and pick the one that works after the fact. That's just not how science works. I understand why they are doing this: it's not really possible to have a proper experiment with a planet. But at the same time, for me to believe a model, at a minimum, it has to be able to predict what will happen with some degree of accuracy. Note that I said a model, not one of three dozen models retroactively: a toddler can do that.

Best I can conclude from my limited understanding is this: we know greenhouse gases cause warming (and a bunch of other side effects, some of which are positive: higher crop yields and "greening" come to mind), and we know we're emitting a ton of greenhouse gases. We also know that the atmosphere is warming, albeit much slower than most models predict it would. We know the oceans are warming, and sea level is rising (again much slower than models predicted). We had an unexplained "hiatus" for a few years though, a few years back, which nobody can explain using the science we have at our disposal. Because it doesn't fit the doom and gloom and "science is settled" narratives, few people know about it, but you can look it up. We are still "guessing" when it comes to cloud cover and ocean modeling, because the problem is super hard, especially cloud cover.

What we do not know for certain is whether CO2 is primarily (let alone entirely) responsible for warming, and therefore whether even reducing it to pre-industrial levels (a 100% unrealistic proposition) would stop the warming. I don't need to tell you what that would do to the economy if we just believed that "science is settled" and committed all of the world's resources to that.

I do agree with efforts to reduce emissions. I think removing emissions and other pollution is a worthy goal in itself. The only problem I have with this whole thing is the solutions being proposed will ruin the economy and there's no guarantee they'll actually do anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Y'all are conflating news articles on science with scientific research.

One targets a grade four reading level, the other does not.
I'm not talking about news articles! I'm talking books and papers on the subject! Written by educated scientists!
 
The more serious question is:

What if it's NOT a big hoax,
and we can STILL create a better world (including everything on the presenter's list) for nothing?
Yes, I believe that's what the cartoon's artist was shooting for, with a bit of "through the mirror, darkly" edge to it....
 
Yes, I believe that's what the cartoon's artist was shooting for, with a bit of "through the mirror, darkly" edge to it....
Could be; I wasn't sure since the cartoon was open to interpretation.

For myself, my view is well-represented in the "formula" I depicted in my earlier post (#71).

I can see a need to soberly evaluate holes in the CAGW models, but I don't see any need to risk one's credibility by attempting to argue against persons who're better-informed than I. I'll leave that to the "minority report" scientists...assuming they don't get squelched, which seems sometimes to have been an issue.

But for me, the second half of the "formula" always seems the weakest -- and, moreover, something for which the relevant expertise is almost entirely outside the realm of science and falls instead under economics, political science, law, crowd psychology, history, and even trade negotiations.

Let's say we are likely to get CAGW if total emissions rise or remain level instead of falling.

And let's say that due to lagging impacts of changes we might make, we're in for some substantive amount of CAGW negative impacts no matter what we do (something that's probably been true since the 1970's). Cuts we make now probably don't benefit us for 25 years or more; cuts we make in 25 years, for 50 years or more; and so on.

And let's furthermore say that only wealthy 1st-world societies can afford to experiment with clean power-generation technologies, etc.; others are pretty much stuck worrying about survival and advancement towards 1st-world status.

And let's finally add (what as far as I know is not controversial) that power-generation technology (wood -> coal -> oil -> LNG -> early nuclear -> Gen 4 nuclear) trends overall towards lower-emissions over time as a society advances in wealth, with Gen 4 nuclear being zero emissions AND able to "eat" (as fuel) most of the toxic output from earlier-generations of nuclear power.

Seems to me, then, that the hot tip is to avoid doing anything that interrupts the advancement of wealth and technology of any society, so that they can all cross the Gen 4 zero-emissions surplus-power-generation "finish line" as fast as possible.

In the meantime, the advancing societies (e.g. China) will be strip-mining coal and generating smog and whatnot, which is (directly) counter-productive, but (indirectly) an expected stage in the process.

But fifty years on, when every village in Madagascar is powering a near-U.S. level of per-capita power consumption with local Thorium reactors (or whatever), and all the cars are electric, you wind up with all the livable cities, clean water, etc., that you could possibly hope for.

Interrupt that process, and you keep 3rd-world nations stuck in poverty (and 2nd-world nations stuck in 2nd-world status, using carbon-heavy 2nd-generation power plants) without ever meaningfully reducing emissions, elongating the period in which nations rely on high-carbon power sources. That's what I don't want. But that's what most of the LILCAPEL (referring back to my earlier post) ideas seem likely to give us. To me, they look more like symbolic, or even religious, gestures -- a sort of civilizational chest-beating mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -- at the expense of interrupting that process. It's show instead of substance: A half-billion westerners feeling guilty and wanting to wear a hairshirt.

But if they -- we -- would just stay out of the way, I think we'll get most of what we were hoping for...largely by doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
Could be; I wasn't sure since the cartoon was open to interpretation.

For myself, my view is well-represented in the "formula" I depicted in my earlier post (#71).

I can see a need to soberly evaluate holes in the CAGW models, but I don't see any need to risk one's credibility by attempting to argue against persons who're better-informed than I. I'll leave that to the "minority report" scientists...assuming they don't get squelched, which seems sometimes to have been an issue.

But for me, the second half of the "formula" always seems the weakest -- and, moreover, something for which the relevant expertise is almost entirely outside the realm of science and falls instead under economics, political science, law, crowd psychology, history, and even trade negotiations.

Let's say we are likely to get CAGW if total emissions rise or remain level instead of falling.

And let's say that due to lagging impacts of changes we might make, we're in for some substantive amount of CAGW negative impacts no matter what we do (something that's probably been true since the 1970's). Cuts we make now probably don't benefit us for 25 years or more; cuts we make in 25 years, for 50 years or more; and so on.

And let's furthermore say that only wealthy 1st-world societies can afford to experiment with clean power-generation technologies, etc.; others are pretty much stuck worrying about survival and advancement towards 1st-world status.

And let's finally add (what as far as I know is not controversial) that power-generation technology (wood -> coal -> oil -> LNG -> early nuclear -> Gen 4 nuclear) trends overall towards lower-emissions over time as a society advances in wealth, with Gen 4 nuclear being zero emissions AND able to "eat" (as fuel) most of the toxic output from earlier-generations of nuclear power.

Seems to me, then, that the hot tip is to avoid doing anything that interrupts the advancement of wealth and technology of any society, so that they can all cross the Gen 4 zero-emissions surplus-power-generation "finish line" as fast as possible.

In the meantime, the advancing societies (e.g. China) will be strip-mining coal and generating smog and whatnot, which is (directly) counter-productive, but (indirectly) an expected stage in the process.

But fifty years on, when every village in Madagascar is powering a near-U.S. level of per-capita power consumption with local Thorium reactors (or whatever), and all the cars are electric, you wind up with all the livable cities, clean water, etc., that you could possibly hope for.

Interrupt that process, and you keep 3rd-world nations stuck in poverty (and 2nd-world nations stuck in 2nd-world status, using carbon-heavy 2nd-generation power plants) without ever meaningfully reducing emissions, elongating the period in which nations rely on high-carbon power sources. That's what I don't want. But that's what most of the LILCAPEL (referring back to my earlier post) ideas seem likely to give us. To me, they look more like symbolic, or even religious, gestures -- a sort of civilizational chest-beating mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -- at the expense of interrupting that process. It's show instead of substance: A half-billion westerners feeling guilty and wanting to wear a hairshirt.

But if they -- we -- would just stay out of the way, I think we'll get most of what we were hoping for...largely by doing nothing.
My worry is that we were well past "just the tip" 50 years ago, and that we will never be able to repair the damage we have done to the environment.
 
My worry is that we were well past "just the tip" 50 years ago, and that we will never be able to repair the damage we have done to the environment.
Could be.

Since emissions would increase regardless due to existing trends in China alone even if every other country on the planet went to zero tomorrow, and since China absolutely is not going to voluntarily sit in 2nd-world status to prevent that happening, and since absolutely nobody is going to war to force them to stop burning coal and buying cars...given all that, a certain amount of fatalism seems sensible.

In that case, though, what would be the sensible action to take?

(I'm not asking a rhetorical question; I genuinely am open to discussion.)

If we're in for heat either way, it may be that our remaining choice is whether to endure the heat as wealthy societies or poor ones. In the latter, the heat will kill; in the former, it is an inconvenience, requiring a lot of pricey homes in coastal areas (e.g. Martha's Vineyard) to move inland.

Or perhaps our only way out is with something fairly radical planetary engineering (stuff at the scale of building a giant sunshade in space that stays between us and the sun somehow). Well, there again, it might be the kind of thing the U.S. could undertake, but I'll guarantee we won't try to undertake it during a recession.

Anyhow, wherever I turn, it always looks to me like people are overly-concerned with proving the first half of the formula. I really wish I could hear some more substantive talk about the second half, though. "Okay guys, let's stipulate CAGW for the sake of argument. What then?" It's the responses to that question that keep striking me as variations on the theme of "Let's give lots of regulatory power to whichever politicians have done the best job making CAGW sound scary." I always want to respond, "Fine. And once we've made them and all their donors independently wealthy, what are we going to do that's useful? And I don't just mean, to emotionally express our horror and sorrow at what our parents and grandparents did when driving the family to the beach, back when we were all either in short-pants or no-more-than-a-twinkle. I mean: To make life all nice and clean and green and high-tech looking, like a cross between a really nice botanical garden and the inside of an Apple Store in their heyday. How do we get there?"

I'm open. But until I hear a good plan of that kind, or unless someone shows me that Gen 4 power stations aren't all they're made out to be, my inclination is to sit tight and keep the economy humming so they can scale up as fast as possible. Since Gen 4 also has the benefit of being unable to generate nuclear weapons, I see no reason not to incentivize their construction everywhere we can. ("Here, China, have a power plant on us. Feel free to duplicate as needed. Could save you a lot in urban asthma outbreaks....")
 
Ever try and lose weight? Exercise scientist have multiple different views on how weight loss happens and the popular views on the subject are constantly changing. Every week there is a new "scientific" study that "proves" the beliefs of past exercise scientists wrong.
If scientists cant figure out the best way to do something as easily tested as losing weight how are they to be trusted with something as huge as predicting our effect on the future climate?
My faith in scientists opinions is close to on par with my trust for politicians! They have been proven wrong countless times. I'll believe it when I see it work!
That’s been figured out a loooooong time ago. The equation is simple: eat less, sweat more. That fact is simply indisputable.

Scientists don't want your faith and never asked for it. All anyone with a STEM background asks is for you to look at all the data, not just cherry-pick the facts that support your argument.

Another angle to take on you is that you put your faith in a scientist when you plunked your money down for a Fractal product. You put your faith in scientists of nearly every discipline every time you get in your car, open a carton of milk, and sit down to write your idiot posts.

You’re such a bright flash of ignorant stupidity that I can’t waste my time anymore. You’re blocked just like the other ostrich.
 
Last edited:
Could be.

Since emissions would increase regardless due to existing trends in China alone even if every other country on the planet went to zero tomorrow, and since China absolutely is not going to voluntarily sit in 2nd-world status to prevent that happening, and since absolutely nobody is going to war to force them to stop burning coal and buying cars...given all that, a certain amount of fatalism seems sensible.

In that case, though, what would be the sensible action to take?

(I'm not asking a rhetorical question; I genuinely am open to discussion.)

If we're in for heat either way, it may be that our remaining choice is whether to endure the heat as wealthy societies or poor ones. In the latter, the heat will kill; in the former, it is an inconvenience, requiring a lot of pricey homes in coastal areas (e.g. Martha's Vineyard) to move inland.

Or perhaps our only way out is with something fairly radical planetary engineering (stuff at the scale of building a giant sunshade in space that stays between us and the sun somehow). Well, there again, it might be the kind of thing the U.S. could undertake, but I'll guarantee we won't try to undertake it during a recession.

Anyhow, wherever I turn, it always looks to me like people are overly-concerned with proving the first half of the formula. I really wish I could hear some more substantive talk about the second half, though. "Okay guys, let's stipulate CAGW for the sake of argument. What then?" It's the responses to that question that keep striking me as variations on the theme of "Let's give lots of regulatory power to whichever politicians have done the best job making CAGW sound scary." I always want to respond, "Fine. And once we've made them and all their donors independently wealthy, what are we going to do that's useful? And I don't just mean, to emotionally express our horror and sorrow at what our parents and grandparents did when driving the family to the beach, back when we were all either in short-pants or no-more-than-a-twinkle. I mean: To make life all nice and clean and green and high-tech looking, like a cross between a really nice botanical garden and the inside of an Apple Store in their heyday. How do we get there?"

I'm open. But until I hear a good plan of that kind, or unless someone shows me that Gen 4 power stations aren't all they're made out to be, my inclination is to sit tight and keep the economy humming so they can scale up as fast as possible. Since Gen 4 also has the benefit of being unable to generate nuclear weapons, I see no reason not to incentivize their construction everywhere we can. ("Here, China, have a power plant on us. Feel free to duplicate as needed. Could save you a lot in urban asthma outbreaks....")
The only sensible action to take is to move to technologies so green they offset the smelly brown tech being used in China.

Will we do it? Not until it is profitable--and with so much corporate welfare and subsidies going toward maintaining the status quo and subverting the growing desire of many to live in a more Earth-friendly way (thus preventing the 'free hand of the market' from raising its middle finger at the fossil fuel industry), I doubt we will turn that corner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom