Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Nothing. Everything I post is based on hard science. If it were not you would be able to address my post directly instead of using strawman fallacy.

I’ve been very clear the global temperature is rising due to increased CO2 levels from use of fossil fuels. Your post here is pure strawman fallacy.

Of course you are welcome to provide quotes of me claiming the climate is not changing or the planet is not warming or CO2 levels do not affect global temperature or using fossil fuels does not increase atmospheric CO2. But you WON’T because you are engaging in strawman fallacy because you know everything I post is science based.

You are going to have to actually make an intellectual argument with me based on data and studies. Or you will continue to look silly just posting easily verifiably false information and logical fallacy. I wish you would refrain from false information and fallacy because it cheapens the debate on a very important subject and sullies the reputation of science.

 

I didn't say we were first.

And, the point is that we are NOT leaders.

So, you're just having a big fat fail.

 

Then, the next thing you have to recognize is that we are among the worst emitters of CO2 in the first world.

You complain about EU, but the EU does way better than the USA on a per capita basis - the only valid measure.

And, I cited that.

Many here blame others for emitting greenhouse gas, using that as an excuse for the USA doing nothing.

But, as the cite shows, we need to clean up our own act before we can take leadership in addressing this problem with other countries.

 

I clearly stated we are close to breaking the top ten. But you posted disinformation. You claimed we are second worst in the whole world. Then you move the goalposts to CYA. I don’t like dealing with disinformation on science based issues. Apparently facts are completely irrelevant to you.

I clearly pointed out one reason the EU shows better stats is because they are outsourcing emissions to the US snd Brazil. I know you are unaware of this, but it’s s fact you SHOULD be aware of.

I clearly articulated I have no act to clean up. I’m carbon neutral and often carbon footprint negative. I sequester carbon hand over fist.

I’m going to reiterate I’m uninterested in your logical fallacies after your posting verifiably false information.

I specifically addressed your disinformation. It would be nice if you actually addressed my posts instead of the endless streams of fallacy.

 

I was referring to first world countries, as I've pointed out many times.

I pointed out that what Curacao or other tiny countries do is NOT the issue concerning our own high per capita emissions. First, we're wealthy and thus have options. Next, they are tiny, and policy changes there make little difference. Next, when we are not performing and use these tiny countries as excuses for our poor performance, we simply write off any actual leadership we could have.

And as I've addressed before, your personal behavior is not an excuse for ignoring what America is doing.

 

If you are referring to the few first world nations you need to say so, not specifically say the entire world. Words mean things.

Qatar and Luxembourg and Canada and UAE are also wealthy countries with options. Every country is responsible for what it does. I have never used any other country’s behavior as an excuse for US behavior. That is strawman fallacy from you. You made it up. I simply pointed out your post was disinformation. I made no excuses for any country.

Then I pointed out Europe outsource emissions. Which is a fact you are either unaware of or unconcerned with. Which is fine but something that must be considered if you want to make comparisons.

I can only control my behavior. You will continue to pollute no matter what I do. All I can do is sequester as much of your excess carbon emissions as possible and point out your disinformation you post on PF. If you want less CO2 you need to stop complaining and emit less or sequester more. If you don’t, you are hypocritical as well as your country being hypocritical. If you would change your diet and consumer habits I could sequester even more carbon.

 

Yep! And that is a large part of why we just elected a “green” government - as for Canada - they are all sitting on icebergs waiting for warming to happen

 

Sooooo - facts are too hard?
It is all there in the ipcc reports and unless you can convince givernments throughout the world to ignore those reports griping on the internet will do diddly squat

 

It is not science. There are scientists most of whom would not have a job if they convinced people this was a load of bullcrap.

Given that they have been wrong so many times why depend on them? They are activists for a cause just like Anthony Fauci who changed his mind about 7 times. That is not science.

 

IPCC is a political facade, not a reliable scientific source. there projections over estimate warming by a fact of 2-3 times.

 

Here they go again.

Idiots predicting half of Vietnam and Thailand will be under water by 2050. Science!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

Just like these morons.

https://empoweringamerica.org/tea-factsheet-climate-predictions-through-the-years/

So what if they were wrong? It's science!

 

Waiting for warming to happen? LOL. Where do you get your information again?

https://www.wrrb.ca/news/canada-warming-twice-fast-rest-world-and-nwt-warming-three-times-faster

 

My take on science and why it is a lie to call this hard science.

Without being a professional scientist I would group what we call science in 3 categories. Just from my head.

1. Absolute science. This is science that is not consensus based. If you asked 1000 real scientists the chemical formula for water they would all say H2O. Not 92% or even 99% but 100%. The periodic table is absolute science.

2. Evidentiary science. An example of this would be clinical trials for drugs. They are limited, they are never 100% complete. They are not testing every single person with a disease. There are limitations of time. The goal is to get enough data enough evidence to know if a drug is safe enough and effective enough to be approved for market.

Some drugs after being prescribed for a time will reveal themselves as not safe or effective and have been taken off the market or physicians decide to not write scripts for it.

3. Consensus science. In the case of global warming or climate change nobody is studying if this is real. It is assumed.
The 97% consensus is BS it is never that high and not all the people they poll(Science by polls?) are real scientists. If 10% are skeptical that is enough to say it is not science.
Skepticism is a part of science activism is not.

So at it's best this is the lowest least form of science. Enough to take notice but nothing more than that. Changing the name global warming to climate change is the opposite of science. Too much bias and too much activism to ever call this science.

 

Australians losing their way.
Our Green Energy Future? Australians to be Hit with Shock Electricity Price Rises
Eric Worrall
As our new Prime Minister’s grand green energy transformation plan falls flat, ordinary Australians are feeling the pain of politically motivated lack of investment in dispatchable energy infrastructure. . . .

 

And never mind China is now buying coal in record volume from Russia at prices well below what they were paying Australia. And guess what Australia is doing to decrease global coal consumption? Selling to India and Europe instead! Cut carbon emissions at home but increase coal and LNG exports to be burned in countries with far “dirtier” coal burning facilities. LOL

And people eat up the nonsense that Australia is finally going to help the planet. I guess people will believe about anything these days…

 

What you are saying IS an accusation of conspiracy - in fact, a conspiracy carried out by the vast majority of scientists in all countries.

Where is your evidence?

 

They are the ones trying to destroy my freedom and ruin my country's economy so the burden of proof is on them.

The behavior of those in power indicates they do not believe these theories. That is all they are theories.

The Obamas buy a home in a place that was supposed to be under water 20 years ago. John Kerry flies everywhere in a private jet.

We saw with covid the absolute hypocrisy and lack of science.

So many predictions have been wrong but shut up they are scientists! This is all about control over our economy.

 

Those in power have nothing to do with science. They can and should consult science, but obviously many are absolutely uninterested. That doesn't change science.

No, that land was never projected to be underwater at this point. Plus, that land has plenty of value before sea rise can get to it.

This is just totally false. We got the result of our state of preparedness and planning, combined with the best understanding we had - understanding that absolutely DID change, because of the huge effort in learning about COVID.

Plus, never in history has an effective vaccine been designed and produced so rapidly.

That last is more nonsense.

But, back to the point of the question I asked:

You charged a climate science conspiracy.

>> Where's your evidence?

 

Italian CNR [National Center of Research ... Italian acronyms have got a different order ...] is clearly saying that at local level it's to late to do something. It's not a pessimistic statement, but a scientific suggestion to do something.

Just today a very big section of an Alpine glacier on Marmolada has fallen, killing not a few persons.
Among those persons there were expert mountaineers like me.

I have spent some time examining the path that the groups were following.
I've hears the impossible. It seems that the local Alpine Club discouraged expedition to climb the Marmolada following that path ...
I cannot say. Personally I'm not afraid of ice [take a look at the picture of my avatar!], but I know where to stop.
I had to be there to realize if the Alpine Guides had to note something or not.

Anyway, probably we should use satellites to delimit off-limit zones on the glaciers.
The problem is if there are satellites available for this ...

This said, the real problem, in the mean term, is not Antarctica.
The glaciers of Antarctica are in a good part IN the oceans.
If they melt ... nothing will change.

The real main problem is Greenland: it's covered by kilometers of ice.
And that ice is not floating, it's on dry land. If that ice melts ... many coastal cities will live a tragedy.

 

I respect all you've said here.

I would note that melting sea ice isn't of zero consequence in that Earth's reflectivity is changed. Thus Earth collects more solar heat rather than reflecting it.

Also, at least in some cases where glaciers still terminate in the sea, sea ice can slow mainland glacial advance. This is an issue in western Antarctica, for example.

 

99.5% of all ice in Greenland in 1900 is still there.

 

Not to worry.
New Study: Greenland ‘Must Have Been At Least 3°C Warmer’ Than Today During The Early Holocene
By Kenneth Richard on 4. July 2022

Share this...
These much warmer Greenland temperatures imply that the elevation of the ice sheet was 400 meters lower than it is today from about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.
Scientists (Westhoff et al., 2022) report that the two largest Greenland melt events in the last few hundred years occurred in 2012 and in 1889 CE – when atmospheric CO2 levels were still under 300 ppm.

The “melt events around the Holocene Climate Optimum were more intense and more frequent” than has been observed during the modern period. And the most prominent melt events of the last 10,000 years centered around the Medieval Warm Period, 986 CE.

Overall, the elevation of the Greenland ice sheet has grown by 0.4 km since the Early Holocene, as “summer temperatures must have been at least 3 ± 0.6°C warmer during the Early Holocene compared to today.”



Image Source: Westhoff et al., 2022

 

He said that it does not matter that these people have been so wrong for so long. We are supposed to shut up and just let them control our economy.

 

Saying this must be real because 90% of these so called scientists say it is would be like saying white privilege and systemic racism is real because 99% of sociologists say it is. Most sociologists are to the left of Bernie Sanders.

The politics and activism cannot be separated because many if not most of these kids enter the field for that reason.

 

WUWT has posted a Trenberth paper. This is an example of the site's fundamental fairness. I look forward to any orthodox AGW site posting a skeptic paper.
Another Energy Imbalance Paper.
Guest Blogger
He studied energy changes from the atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice as climate system components from 2000 to 2019 and compared this to the radiation at the top of the…