The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Jud]

40 inches of rain in East Texas from a storm that didn't even make it to hurricane status (second "thousand year event" there in what, 3 years?), Downtown Miami has 30 days a year of "sunny day flooding" and is on track for 150 days in 20-30 years, and we're worried that Ms. Thunberg is scaring the kids too much? I'm more worried she isn't scaring the (supposed) adults enough.

[Jud]

Well, here's a scientist characterizing other scientists as "so freaked out:"

 

 

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Good point.  The possibility that she could be thinking, and speaking, for herself is simply unfathomable.  

 

 

[Jud]

I don't see nukes as that feasible here due to huge capital costs and NIMBY. I''d also like to have a better idea if there are reactor designs that don't leave long half-life products, can't use or be used for weapons grade material, can be operated long enough to pay back the huge investment, won't turn parts of the buildings they're housed in into long half-life material, and can be economically decommissioned. Oh, and can be built in time. I have a feeling that's a very tall order.

 

Something that no one's mentioned is saving on the conservation side to limit generation needs. Things as simple as retrofitting housing and other buildings with better insulation would give local folks decent jobs (either private or subsidized by govt for employees and/or consumers) and cut down power and fuel needs for heating and cooling.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, shtf said:

Before some of you get too worked up over Greta's angry speech, why not spend some time reading up on Club of Rome?  If you do, you should discover that it was David Rockefeller (the grand daddy of US globalism) and his globalist buddies who in I think 1978 at Rockefeller's vacation home in Rome conceived of the idea of creating a global crisis that the entire world could rally around and contribute their resources to.  They called it Global Warming.  If you do your research there, you should easily discover why they did it (it ain't pretty) and why some of you are evidence that their strategy is working rather well.

 

Maybe then you can fast forward to 2009 and google ClimateGate and there you should discover that some of you have been duped for decades (by scientists no less) and there you'll also discover why overnight they ceased using the phrase Global Warming and now use the phrase Climate Change.

 

And if you think all this is joke, why not spend a few moments to research what some of the globalists' ultimate goals are.  Try googling Georgia Guidestones and there you'll see in 10 languages the globalists 10 tenets / suggestions for mother earth.

 

I know, I know.  Some of you are thinking I'm just another nutty conspiracy theorist but that's not true at all.  I'm just smarter than some of you. 

I see you've reposted the photo Dinesh D'Souza used on Twitter. He started his career having his student publication shut down by his college for anti-Semitic articles; moved on to being removed as head of a Christian college for unethical behavior; and topped things off by committing federal election fraud. So obviously a reliable moral and factual guide to the issues of our day.

[Jud]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

https://climatefeedback.org/

 

Maybe someone can send Ms Thunberg this link.  It might calm her anxiety a bit sometimes.  This is a very fair and balanced site.  Not climate denying, nor fear mongering.  

 

Responses are by scientists with expertise in the field of climate science. 

 

Here is an example rebutting Stephen Hawkings claiming Trump could cause a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus. 

 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earth-is-not-at-risk-of-becoming-a-hothouse-like-venus-as-stephen-hawking-claimed-bbc/

 

Or this one rebutting a Washington Examiner and Zero Hedge article about the failure of climate models.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/

 

Or this one where they confirm an NBC news story on climate change was accurate.

 

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/nbc-news-story-accurately-covers-research-on-two-millennia-of-climate-history-jaclyn-jeffrey-wilensky/

 

 

 

Another excellent site for climate science: http://www.realclimate.org/

[Jud]

31 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

How many statements like these become accepted as truth because they were re-posted by people without any thought or attempt at corroboration? Just for fun I decided to randomly pick one "fact" and made an effort to verify it.

 

If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

 

Don't know whether it makes a difference to the result, but worth pointing out your source speaks only to the US and only to the energy sector, not transportation, agriculture, etc 

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, shtf said:

and was a traitor to his own

 

This libel against a child in the hands of monsters is repeated only by insufferable fools. I don't have the time to bother with such people. On the ignore list you go.

[Jud]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

There's a lot of that in audio.

 

There's a lot of it in the world, and hobbies like audio, being human pursuits, aren't an exception.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

I mostly agree with Ms. Thunberg. But I don't like her attitude; it's confrontional and not helpful. Angry people don't impress me.  YMMV. 

 

I would say some part of that is very possibly due to the Asperger's. Folks on that part of the spectrum are often very intelligent but have an anomalous affect (using the psychological meaning of that word). So I cut her some slack in that regard.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm talking about the presentation, not the message.

 

Yes, heaven save us from annoying people! 😉

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, esldude said:

I can cut her some slack on that too.  It is more the petulant child who will school the adults on how things not need to be done, but must be done that rubs me the wrong way.  

 

She follows the IPCC summary about how we have to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 30 or so years to keep the warming at 1.5 to 2 degrees C.  The next part is after that we have to be at zero emissions and/or start removal of carbon from the atmosphere on a large scale.  I've got bad news for you.  That latter part at least isn't going to happen.  I don't see a viable way to achieve that in such a time frame.  

 

So Greta Thunburg lays down the law about what we must do.  Says she isn't going to work in science as we already know what we need to do we simply have to stop emissions.  Well a child can think that way.  It isn't a winning formula for how to do it.  I also think she has been scared beyond reason about her future being stolen.  And yes I know what the future possibilities are in regards to what the IPCC report says can happen.  Making the bulk of the world effectively uninhabitable by humans is dire.  But that isn't in the cards for Greta Thunberg's lifetime.  

 

There are theoretical ways to achieve what is needed, but given the political nature of the world I fear it effectively cannot happen that quickly.  You always have a hard time convincing people to radically in very short time frames alter what they do for a future effect many alive won't experience all that much, and which doesn't become a total disaster until they are are gone.  No matter how certain it is. 

 

I still remember when the air was brown and much of the natural water was polluted like a sewer (or worse).  There has been excellent progress made in those the last 50 years.  The changes for that were much smaller than required to stop man made contributions to global warming.  Yet it was a hard sale at the time.  

 

Puts me in mind of a couple of things: Kennedy saying we should go to the moon "not because it is easy, but because it is hard;" and the old GE engineers'(?) slogan, "The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

 

Plainly, saying we're not going to achieve lofty goals isn't a great way to motivate people to try. I'm more inclined toward "Dammit, let's do this or go down fighting!" than concentrating on how difficult or perhaps impossible it might be. And any 16 year old, let alone one as motivated and with as blunt a manner as Ms. Thunberg, might well react with anger to repeatedly being told the previous generations have screwed things up so irretrievably that she must allow us to continue comfortably sliding toward hell rather than try to fix anything.

 

BTW, she and the kids around her do have some sense of humor:

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I think collectively at the time they did. I certainly don't think they were thinking, " you know we could trash the future environment making it easier on us. So let's do that. We don't care about our grandchildren.".

 

It's been 31 years since James Hansen's Congressional testimony, longer since his work was initially published. Compare how short a time it took to ban DDT after Silent Spring. This is more like the time lapse between the Surgeon General's report in 1963 and the state lawsuits against the tobacco companies, and for similar reasons: a wealthy industry with political and media connections working feverishly to postpone the day of reckoning. 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I agree.  Doesn't seem like a reason to condemn an entire generation for sins of the past.  If anything currently wealthy entities have their ducks in a row to an unprecedented level to continue that kind of activity.  

 

I suppose I am simply so much in agreement with her urgency that I don't take offense at a reasonably accurate criticism that we haven't acted with sufficient urgency to this point.

[Jud]

16 hours ago, esldude said:

Now I'm surprised no one has posted how we get to zero emissions starting in 1970 and reaching it in 2050.  I'm all for it, but I'm not seeing the path yet. 

 

Working on an answer, but not until tomorrow. Not that it will be any great thing, or that my very limited knowledge should give anyone the impression that my answer in any way limits the possibilities known to those actually working in the field.

 

1 hour ago, esldude said:

After all the Chinese activity to steal intellectual property of western countries how politically viable do you think that is?

 

In fact I think the Chinese may be ahead of us in many respects regarding "green" tech, so it is not as if the sharing would all be going one way. In both basic and applied scientific research the Chinese have been making great strides, while the US has de-prioritized at least basic research, so we need to get accustomed to not making our former assumption that we would be leading the world.

[Jud]

Pertinent: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/only-2-countries-are-meeting-their-climate-pledges-heres-how-the-10-worst-could-improve

 

[Jud]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

I think he means extrinsic to a given population or ecosystem which would still be on earth.  Though meteors and sun output would qualify as well. 

 

The so called tipping points are the real concern.  Methane release could happen in a big way in a decade or two, and cause really rapid warming.  And while the methane would go away in another decade the warmed earth would tend to stay warmed.  Warmed to the point most of the globe is uninhabitable by humans and many other forms of life. 

 

Methane is one concern; a tipping point in sea level rise due to collapse of a significant portion of the Antarctic ice shelf is another. (See realclimate.org for more.)

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, mansr said:

What has Little Miss Climate Change actually achieved? Beyond boosting sales of he parents' book, that is.

Yes, definitely fair to say a 17 year old on the autism spectrum hasn’t managed to instantly halt climate change within the year by herself.

 

Also fair to ask what each of us has accomplished to make progress toward resolving this problem. Even as much as this teenager (publicity and perhaps some political awareness)?

[Jud]

I’ve made contributions, but I am sure not in as great an amount as the additional contributions engendered by the publicity she’s brought to the situation.

 

I have voted, but I’m sure that hasn’t pushed the political needle as much as the attention she’s focused worldwide.

 

I live in a “green” residence that uses net zero electricity, but I’m sure that amounts to a much smaller contribution than people who’ve been moved to make various “green” modifications worldwide due to her proselytizing and those whose imaginations she’s captured.

 

Overall, I’m reasonably sure she’s had a far, far greater impact worldwide than all of us here combined.

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

nope

I implicitly trust your assessment. 😀

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I know things you don't in this area.

Yes, you’ve said so before - about many areas. These statements could well be true, but I have no way of knowing.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

Bosses need to boss?

 

The former head of my department disliked it when I worked from home instead of risking my life on a 60 mile commute when local authorities had asked that highway travel be limited due to hazardous conditions. Old head of department retires after 40 years, new head of department, and magically there is suddenly no problem with me moving 1500 miles away and working from home. (I offered to come into the nearest office, about 15 miles away, if desired. He said "Do you want to?", I said "No," and that was the end of it.)

[Jud]

4 hours ago, semente said:

We needs strong and honest politicians, free (from business-interference) media, a more educated population and competent researchers/thinkers to help us mould this new world.

 

Sad to say this, because I share the goal and try to do my part as I see it, but I think the response to this came from a hokey old US TV show called Dragnet.

 

Dragnet was a show about Police Sergeant Joe Friday (told you it was hokey) bringing miscreants to justice every week.  Friday's character specialized in a less sophisticated version of the acerbic one-liners Clint Eastwood and then Arnold Schwartzenegger would go on to make much more famous.

 

One week I happened to turn to it as Friday was interviewing a generic leftist longhaired hippie troublemaker type.  The hippie was passionately protesting that his actions were intended to bring about a future more perfect world.

 

Sgt. Friday (deadpan, acerbic): "Can't have a perfect world."

 

Mr. Hippie (outraged, impassioned): "Why not?!"

 

Sgt. Friday (deadpan, acerbic): "No perfect people."

 

Mr. Hippie: Visibly deflated silence.

 

The Internet is only the latest of a long line of technologies and institutions that were supposed to make us better educated, better off, and better behaved.  In general we do seem to be making slow, incremental progress on the first two.  But I doubt that better education has actually made us smarter or our decisions better, and I don't think human behavior has changed much if at all as a result.

 

We got into this mess being the vastly imperfect humans we are, and in the increasingly unlikely event we get out of it,  it will have to be via methods this same vastly imperfect humanity can utilize.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, semente said:

Perhaps got into this mess being the vastly greedy humans we are. Or am I the only one to see a correlation between profit and environmental disaster?

 

 

Well of course who profits from corporate profit? Vastly greedy humans. I don't understand the distinction some folks make between corporations run by and comprised of individual people, and individual people when they leave work at the corporations and are sitting at home. Ethically, what is different?

 

Quote

Deregulation and weak governance got us here, mostly driven by corruption but also by ideology.

 

 

I disagree with Priaptor that government is somehow uniquely less competent and more wasteful compared to private corporations. But seeing the deregulation and weak governance humans have so far wrought, what makes you think people will suddenly change?

 

Quote

It wouldn’t be so bad if we all had profited more fairly but that is not the case.

 

Yes it would be so bad, unless by "we all" you include all living things on the planet, meaning humans would have been good stewards right along.

 

Sorry not to be offering any quick solutions, but I'm not that smart.

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

The flooding problem is hardly the effect of climate change but everything to do with overbuilding, interfering drainage and the underlying water table so vital to the health of SE FL.

 

There are now 30 days a year of fair weather flooding in Miami. There's never been any drainage, as the water table is a couple of feet below ground, so there's nowhere to drain to. (I used to experience this during storms when I lived there for several years.)

 

Within my lifetime (I'm in my mid-60s), the number of days per year of fair weather flooding in Miami is projected to reach 150.