A riff on an article on climate change and the development of a political party's likely future position on it

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
64,712
2,045
126
How do we come to have political opinions regarding the emergence of theoretical solutions to emerging problems in the development of human civilization. Take things like nuclear vs renewable energy, the wisdom of globalization, capitalism vs socialism, just about any new idea that some thinker somewhere sees promise in. How do we form our own attitudes toward its value, especially when so much of what is theorized about and critiqued requires an enormous degree of specialized and technological sophistication to even begin to evaluate at a personal level. Don't we really get our world view defined for us, not by personal assessment of information, but by being told what to think by someone or something else. Aren't there forces at work that have interests for which they lobby and who make a living influencing public opinion?

I ran into something this early morning that I have not yet been trained by one of these interest influences to have told me what to think and I wound up asking myself whether it seemed like a good idea, a fools errand because how would I really know. But I found it interesting and not an idea which I was very familiar with, something new, different, and interesting, at least to me. And that fact caused me to have the thoughts I just expressed. Here is something that is not a part of my political beliefs; I'm on my own with it.

There are certain aspects of the suggestion that I will link to below that already have political baggage, OK, terms like global local and climate change which doubtlessly each of us has independently established the absolute truth about, like organ grinder monkeys, but I found the basic idea, that the problem of reducing CO2 requires a systemic change to be rather novel. I haven't yet been taught what to think since it is probably not well known and yet a threat to anybody. So maybe if there is something there we can get it while it's fresh before we learn what we are supposed to think. Your thoughts:

 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
Eventually we will need to put aside our petty differences and transition into one collective. All people on the planet play by the exact same rules, use the exact same currency, and are ultimately governed by a single government. Anything less is inefficient, the single largest example being the amount of money we spend on military assets because we are all competing instead of cooperating.

Of course resistance to this idea will remain until religion fades, because all the people who are winning within the current system can continue to use religion to control the vast majority of those who are losing.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
Author wants us to employ currencies which can only be spent within 30 miles of where we live, and only on things manufactured within that radius, as a means of reducing the demand for fossil fuel burning long range transport. Then fails to mention this part: for this to have a real impact, whatever we need or want must be manufactured within 30 miles of where we live. Meaning virtually all industry, all factories, must be torn town and built again in different locations. If you don't have a factory which manufactures antiperspirants near you yet, you can expect an epidemic of BO in your town. And he says this solution is necessary because it's too expensive to build renewables! Author is an idiot.

Honestly, everything I read about climate change just makes me think we're doomed.
 
Nov 29, 2006
13,529
1,170
126
Eventually we will need to put aside our petty differences and transition into one collective. All people on the planet play by the exact same rules, use the exact same currency, and are ultimately governed by a single government. Anything less is inefficient, the single largest example being the amount of money we spend on military assets because we are all competing instead of cooperating.

Of course resistance to this idea will remain until religion fades, because all the people who are winning within the current system can continue to use religion to control the vast majority of those who are losing.
Resistance is futile! You are proposing some kind of Star Trek Utopian earth...commie scum!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dank69

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,092
4,706
146
Being informed is always the first step, not taking any idiotic statement at face value, but doing your due diligence as citizen. Don't suck up bullshit with a silicon straw, the world is not going to end in 12 years.

Or if you believed in Al Gore the world has not already ended.
https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now


https://judithcurry.com/ is a good place to start.
As no one has suggested the world will end in 12 years I’m curious as to why you would think they have.

Also Al Gore is not a wizard. You guys really need to get that through your heads.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
As no one has suggested the world will end in 12 years I’m curious as to why you would think they have.

Also Al Gore is not a wizard. You guys really need to get that through your heads.
And you are a liar.......yet again.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

"
'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says"

"

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress again made headlines and sparked conservative criticism when she said Monday that she and other young Americans fear "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made the remark during an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the MLK Now event in New York City celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation's "World War II."

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.":tonguewink:
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
8,334
1,373
96
Personally I'm thinking the World will not end until we managed to blow the Planet up which may not even be possible to do.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
Author wants us to employ currencies which can only be spent within 30 miles of where we live, and only on things manufactured within that radius, as a means of reducing the demand for fossil fuel burning long range transport. Then fails to mention this part: for this to have a real impact, whatever we need or want must be manufactured within 30 miles of where we live. Meaning virtually all industry, all factories, must be torn town and built again in different locations. If you don't have a factory which manufactures antiperspirants near you yet, you can expect an epidemic of BO in your town. And he says this solution is necessary because it's too expensive to build renewables! Author is an idiot.

Honestly, everything I read about climate change just makes me think we're doomed.
I think the author is suggesting some sort of universal income and that universal income can only be spent on stuff created inside the radius, while any income from other sources would still be able to be spent on anything from anywhere. I think the idea is to persuade people to buy food and clothing locally as much as possible. Food shouldn't be a huge deal, at least here in the US. Clothing however, would be subject to the concerns you raise.

Regardless, I still think the system would be nigh impossible to implement, especially globally.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,092
4,706
146
And you are a liar.......yet again.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

"
'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says"

"

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress again made headlines and sparked conservative criticism when she said Monday that she and other young Americans fear "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made the remark during an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the MLK Now event in New York City celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Ocasio-Cortez called the fight to mitigate the effects of climate change her generation's "World War II."

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.":tonguewink:
Well I stand corrected someone did say “the world is going to end”.

So what was she talking about?

Did you watch the interview? I did.
The comment comes between 50:00 & 56:00

She was talking about how and why she “claps” back at detractors. How people and the media accept whatever comes out of people’s mouths when they come from a famous school or have the right family name regardless of if they make sense.

Which is ridiculous (to paraphrase) because as generational thing Gen Z and Millennials are concerned about climate change (world ending in 12 years) and talking heads are arguing about minutiae (funding).

So AOC was being hyperbolic to make a point. The point is the one made in the IPCC SR15
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

To stay below 1.5C and guarantee catastrophic climate changes don’t occur certain reductions must happen by 2030. This is what she was referring too.

Context is important especially when non-scientist and especially politicians are talking about scientific matters. For someone who claims that “being informed is the first step” I’m surprised by how ignorant you are on this.

However while AOC’s comment was scientifically inaccurate, hyperbolic, but in the right ball park you could do worse than listen to her. She has the correct amount of urgency.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
I think the author is suggesting some sort of universal income and that universal income can only be spent on stuff created inside the radius, while any income from other sources would still be able to be spent on anything from anywhere. I think the idea is to persuade people to buy food and clothing locally as much as possible. Food shouldn't be a huge deal, at least here in the US. Clothing however, would be subject to the concerns you raise.

Regardless, I still think the system would be nigh impossible to implement, especially globally.
Yes, I know that what he's suggesting. The problem is for it to have any impact, there'd have to be lots of goods which are locally produced or there wouldn't be much to spend it on. Of all the things I buy, the only thing I can think of that is definitely produced within a 30 mile radius of me is the produce we buy at our local farmer's market, and even some of that is grown probably 50 miles down the coast.

Bottom line is that things are made and/or grown in certain places for reasons. Geographic specialization. The entire point of the idea is to reduce transit related emissions. To do that, both industry and agriculture would have to de-centralize and tons of infrastructure would have to be re-located. The mechanism he proposed - UBI for special currency to spend on locally produced items - isn't important because no emissions will be saved unless farms and factories get re-located first.

The author doesn't bother mentioning this which is why it's a foolish article. It just assumes that if you provide special currency to buy locally people will buy a lot more locally produced goods, as if everything desired is already produced everywhere when the fact is very little that any of us buy is produced near us and there is a massive cost in doing in relocation which the author ignores. And he ignores this after going on and on about how it's too expensive to build renewables infrastructure. He spends almost the entire article saying this then writes two paragraphs at the end which describe what amounts to at best a very half baked idea with serious objections that are not addressed. I'm all for thinking outside the box but the ideas have to be viable and make sense.
 
Last edited:

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
Well I stand corrected someone did say “the world is going to end”.

So what was she talking about?

Did you watch the interview? I did.
The comment comes between 50:00 & 56:00

She was talking about how and why she “claps” back at detractors. How people and the media accept whatever comes out of people’s mouths when they come from a famous school or have the right family name regardless of if they make sense.

Which is ridiculous (to paraphrase) because as generational thing Gen Z and Millennials are concerned about climate change (world ending in 12 years) and talking heads are arguing about minutiae (funding).

So AOC was being hyperbolic to make a point. The point is the one made in the IPCC SR15
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

To stay below 1.5C and guarantee catastrophic climate changes don’t occur certain reductions must happen by 2030. This is what she was referring too.

Context is important especially when non-scientist and especially politicians are talking about scientific matters. For someone who claims that “being informed is the first step” I’m surprised by how ignorant you are on this.

However while AOC’s comment was scientifically inaccurate, hyperbolic, but in the right ball park you could do worse than listen to her. She has the correct amount of urgency.
Yes, dear. cough, bullshit,cough
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,092
4,706
146
"The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables. "

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Wow I’m surprised the author didn’t know about this study from 2015 that directly measured the radiative forcing from the increase in anthropogenic CO2 from 2000-2010.

That’s embarrassing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
5,467
1,534
136
Of course resistance to this idea will remain until religion fades, because all the people who are winning within the current system can continue to use religion to control the vast majority of those who are losing.
Lol, religion has been around for over 10,000 years - I’m sure it will end soon. Human frailty - definitely no end in sight.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
14,189
1,041
126
Wow I’m surprised the author didn’t know about this study from 2015 that directly measured the radiative forcing from the increase in anthropogenic CO2 from 2000-2010.

That’s embarrassing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
Since you appear to have extensive knoldge on the subject, you get asked the question. How are the two articles reconciled? Clearly one of them is incorrect, or am I missunderstand the fundamental point of one or both?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,092
4,706
146
Since you appear to have extensive knoldge on the subject, you get asked the question. How are the two articles reconciled? Clearly one of them is incorrect, or am I missunderstand the fundamental point of one or both?
So the two studies are talking about fundamentally different things.

The study I linked to is a direct measurement of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on heat.

If you remember the post I made about Venus in the other thread visible light from the sun hits a planet some of it is reflected based on the planets albedo and the rest is absorbed and radiated back into space as infrared light. This model works well for Mercury but not for planets with thick atmospheres.

On Earth when the infrared photon tries to head back to space it may hit a CO2 molecule (or H2O, or methane, etc but not N2 or O2). Because that photon has the right frequency it gets absorbed by the CO2 molecule. That excites an electron on the molecule which then emits a new photon.

That process is inherently random so the new photon may now be heading down or left or up or wherever. This is the greenhouse effect. Some of those photons end up heading back to the ground and increasing the temperature.

These researchers are measuring the wavelengths of light refracted from CO2. They did this for 10 years as CO2 increased by 22 PPM and measured the increase. According to the paper the results matched up well with the predictions.

The study Taj linked to is an assessment of the error inherent in the CMIP5 climate change simulation that the IPCC current uses to make predictions about the potential severity of climate change over the next century.

The author feels that the fundamental error in that simulation is larger than what the IPCC says it is and will always be several times larger than any potential signal of man-made climate change.

The first red flag I take issue with is his statement that if an anthropogenic signal is there (it is) it can’t be observed. As that previous study shows it can. If he’s making broad assertions that aren’t supported by his study.

So why does the author of Taj’s study make that assertion if it’s not true and why wasn’t this caught in peer review?

After a little digging, the author who has a background in life science and works at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory. This may also be a red flag or it might not. While life science isn’t exactly the same as climate science he could have a background in simulations which would be appropriate for this study.


Another potential red flag is he published at Frontiers which I hadn’t heard of . I took a look at them and they have been accused in the past of being a predatory open access publisher.

A predatory publisher basically take publishing fees from the author, say they are going to vet and peer review the paper, and then do neither pocketing the money. If you have a paper that you are concerned won’t survive peer review then paying a predatory publisher is one way to get “published”.

Frontiers has been alleged to hide the results of peer review when it is done and to only give reviewers the option to drop out of the review and not reject a study. https://www.google.com/amp/s/forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/amp/

If those allegations are true then that would be another red flag. It would also explain why the study published even if peer review was done and problems found.

When I look at the authors of the study I linked the first two had backgrounds in radiation research and climate change modeling which is appropriate for their study.

They published in Nature which is one of the preeminent scientific journals and did go through peer review.

So my opinion is Taj’s linked study has significant errors in it and the conclusions aren’t supported by the research. If I’m wrong I would expect the IPCC to take note of study’s and address the claims there in.

Until then it’s just another cherry picked unsupported climate “skeptic” study.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
14,189
1,041
126
So the two studies are talking about fundamentally different things.

The study I linked to is a direct measurement of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on heat.

If you remember the post I made about Venus in the other thread visible light from the sun hits a planet some of it is reflected based on the planets albedo and the rest is absorbed and radiated back into space as infrared light. This model works well for Mercury but not for planets with thick atmospheres.

On Earth when the infrared photon tries to head back to space it may hit a CO2 molecule (or H2O, or methane, etc but not N2 or O2). Because that photon has the right frequency it gets absorbed by the CO2 molecule. That excites an electron on the molecule which then emits a new photon.

That process is inherently random so the new photon may now be heading down or left or up or wherever. This is the greenhouse effect. Some of those photons end up heading back to the ground and increasing the temperature.

These researchers are measuring the wavelengths of light refracted from CO2. They did this for 10 years as CO2 increased by 22 PPM and measured the increase. According to the paper the results matched up well with the predictions.

The study Taj linked to is an assessment of the error inherent in the CMIP5 climate change simulation that the IPCC current uses to make predictions about the potential severity of climate change over the next century.

The author feels that the fundamental error in that simulation is larger than what the IPCC says it is and will always be several times larger than any potential signal of man-made climate change.

The first red flag I take issue with is his statement that if an anthropogenic signal is there (it is) it can’t be observed. As that previous study shows it can. If he’s making broad assertions that aren’t supported by his study.

So why does the author of Taj’s study make that assertion if it’s not true and why wasn’t this caught in peer review?

After a little digging, the author who has a background in life science and works at the Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory. This may also be a red flag or it might not. While life science isn’t exactly the same as climate science he could have a background in simulations which would be appropriate for this study.


Another potential red flag is he published at Frontiers which I hadn’t heard of . I took a look at them and they have been accused in the past of being a predatory open access publisher.

A predatory publisher basically take publishing fees from the author, say they are going to vet and peer review the paper, and then do neither pocketing the money. If you have a paper that you are concerned won’t survive peer review then paying a predatory publisher is one way to get “published”.

Frontiers has been alleged to hide the results of peer review when it is done and to only give reviewers the option to drop out of the review and not reject a study. https://www.google.com/amp/s/forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/amp/

If those allegations are true then that would be another red flag. It would also explain why the study published even if peer review was done and problems found.

When I look at the authors of the study I linked the first two had backgrounds in radiation research and climate change modeling which is appropriate for their study.

They published in Nature which is one of the preeminent scientific journals and did go through peer review.

So my opinion is Taj’s linked study has significant errors in it and the conclusions aren’t supported by the research. If I’m wrong I would expect the IPCC to take note of study’s and address the claims there in.

Until then it’s just another cherry picked unsupported climate “skeptic” study.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
6,729
3,583
136
I've noticed a common theme among conservative drones like Taj: they like the superficial appearance of intelligence, but they never dig deeper to verify that it's true or reflects what they think it does. It's why charlatans like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder thrive. They only like to convey the image of authoritativeness, not actual authority. Verify their claims and you'll usually find out that they're either mistaken or outright lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
5,467
1,534
136
I've noticed a common theme among conservative drones like Taj: they like the superficial appearance of intelligence, but they never dig deeper to verify that it's true or reflects what they think it does. It's why charlatans like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder thrive. They only like to convey the image of authoritativeness, not actual authority. Verify their claims and you'll usually find out that they're either mistaken or outright lying.
Well, I think that the problem you note is one of input sources. Most conservatives start with fox news as the most immediate source of information. For liberals this is MSNBC or CNN (or the NYT and Washpo for those who eschew TV news). These initial inputs predispose the respective camps to search for very different types of confirmation (for those inclined to read further, which, let's be honest, is a very small percentage of the voting population). Sadly, even the NYT tends to apply the study author's results far beyond the scope stated by said authors.

Additionally, there is a certain minimum level of skill required to actually did into scientific reports, analyze the data, methods, results and the quality of the source (reputation of the scientists, source of funding (bias) and quality of the peer reviews (an absolutely essential element in the process, as well as the oft overlooked reproducibility).

Here at ATF, we are blessed to have posters like @Paratus who have the ability and willingness to elucidate such subtleties for us. I, personally, am inspired to put my science degree to work again on such topics (after being discouraged by delving into social science studies that appear more tenuous grasp of signal, or data, integrity than those of the 'hard' sciences.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,002
791
136
As my response to Moonbeam on the subject. Do your due diligence, read up and learn.


"Discussion thread on the new IPCC Report on Climate Change and Land.
The complete Report can be downloaded here [link].
I’m working on digesting all this, here are some articles that I’ve flagged on my twitter feed."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY