RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: Feb 2019

Filed under: — group @ 1 February 2019

A bimonthly thread on societal responses to climate change. Note that there is another open thread for climate science topics. Please stick to specifics as opposed to arguments about ethics, politics or morality in general.

462 Responses to “Forced Responses: Feb 2019”

  1. 201
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel,
    A TED talk I recently watched noted that the military rejects 15% of the potential mercenaries that try to join. My first guess is that they are correct, and as the quality of jobs increases the number of people who aren’t worth $1/hr plus healthcare will increase (unless education and child rearing improve drastically. But in any case, if each worker can produce more than two families can reasonably consume, with reasonable defined by planetary stress, then employment must decrease. Those drivers, stockers, cashiers, initial-contact physicians, and so many others will not be worth retraining or employing. Employment spews carbon via clothes, transportation, buildings, and everything else.

    I don’t think future policy should be based on current realities.

  2. 202
    Carrie says:

    193 nigelj says:
    “This is a false and totally unsubstantiated statement. And the point is that The Green New Deal is not the work of the Democrats as a whole, its from one group and was presented by one politician Ocasio-Cortez. But you seem determined to miss the point and prefer a nit picking criticism.”

    I prefer nitpicking? That’s a lark.

    There is no onus on me to substantiate true statements that anyone is capable of substantiating for themselves OR should already know with the exception of the most ignorant among us. Yourself.

    What was ONE PERSON has not morphed into ONE GROUP within the Democrat party. There you go again Mr. Slippery Eel whose statements and opinions change with the wind. I hear UBI is now a good thing according to you. “A UBI solves it quite simply.” Last week it wasn’t.

    The latest “rendition” of the New green Deal was presented live on TV networks by TWO primary people. AOC and another? Who is that other niglej?

    The GRD GD was NOT written by one person, nor written by TWO people either. IT was a collective effort over many months of late. The GND has been BUILT UPON previous renditions going back years this time by a small click of Justice Democrats and Pro Environmental and Social Welfare staff and activist groups standing on the shoulders of others before them.

    AOC and her staff in particular have been the leading motivators and organisers to get this thing up as a Public Awareness effort.

    But really none of this matters one way or another, even if I got something wrong in that above — Because your claims above and before are ALL WRONG as usual.

    And for the record because you probably do not know this either it is NOT Bill to become a Law but a Resolution that caries zero weight. It’s a document of Idealistic Hope a guiding Light to follow if you will. iow being the US Congress it’s not worth the paper it is printed upon.

    But it is something. It is at least one small step for the US in the right direction. That it will go nowhere doesn’t belittle that positive effort.

    Every single Democratic party people (except one) who has declared themself as a candidate at the time of the anoucment have endorsed this “Resolution”.

    Why? Because it is not binding upon them so even if it went through and passed both Houses of Congress in terms of the next election at this point it is NOT even Democratic Party Policy or endorsed by the DNC organisation.

    It’s a Nothing Burger nigelj. But at least now you know a few things you never knew before you opened you mouth, hey? So you use that to help to an Internet search and find your own substantiation and confirmation.

    Or phone a friend for help. Have fun and enjoy your day. :-)

  3. 203
  4. 204
    Carrie says:

    What’s the ‘Green New Deal’?

    It was Thomas Friedman who in 2007 started calling for a “Green New Deal” to end fossil fuel subsidies, tax carbon dioxide emissions, and create lasting incentives for wind and solar energy. At the dawn of the global financial crisis, the “New Deal” concept that Franklin D. Roosevelt coined 76 years earlier to describe the labor reforms and historic spending on infrastructure and armaments that pulled the United States out of the Great Depression proved attractive.

    Friedman’s ideas made it into the mainstream the following year when presidential candidate Barack Obama added a Green New Deal to his platform.

    In 2009, the United Nations drafted a report calling for a Global Green New Deal to focus government stimulus on renewable energy projects. A month later, Democrats’ landmark cap-and-trade bill — meant to set up a market where companies could buy and sell pollution permits and take a conservative first step toward limiting carbon dioxide emissions — passed in the House with the promise of spurring $150 billion in clean energy investments and creating 1.7 million good-paying jobs.

    From the beginning, there were competing definitions of what “Green New Deal” meant.

    Friedman’s version focused on policies that compelled the “big players to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.” He liked a lot of what Obama enacted — including $51 billion in “green stimulus” and a $2.3 billion tax credit to clean energy manufacturing — even after the administration shelved the Green New Deal rhetoric after the midterm election.

    But then there’s Richard Murphy, a British tax scholar who also claims to have coined the phrase “Green New Deal” around the same time as Friedman. “I don’t even know who Tom Friedman is. If he used the term, it’s complete coincidence,” he says.

    Murphy’s cadre, which named itself the Green New Deal Group, was more ambiguous on how to fund all this green development.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialists of America-backed challenger who trounced Democratic Representative Joe Crowley Tuesday night in a working-class Bronx and Queens district in New York City, outlined a similar vision. She called the Green New Deal proposed in Obama’s 2008 platform a “half measure” that “will not work.”

    Talk of a Green New Deal went quiet for years in the U.S. and Britain. But a new wave of progressive candidates, spurred by the organizing that went into Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Democratic presidential bid, began reviving the term in the past year.

    https://grist.org/article/whats-the-green-new-deal-the-surprising-origins-behind-a-progressive-rallying-cry/

    Just one of many skims of the available history. There’s more. (shrug)

  5. 205
    Killian says:

    To those discussing the Green New Deal, please, credit where do. (Wrong, again, nigel, and by an entire ballpark or ten.)

    During the 2012 presidential election, the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein proposed a Green New Deal as part of her campaign priorities. … A “Green New Deal” wing began to emerge in the Democratic Party after the November 2018 elections.

    Wiki

    So, the GND is neither the work of one person nor is original to the AOC, much less the Dems, but was the **party platform** of the Green Party in 2016. If any of you had paid even a little attention then, you’d know this.

    Funny, I haven’t heard a peep about the origin of it from any source whatsoever, even AOC.

  6. 206
    Killian says:

    Re #193 nigelj said Carrie @186
    “But it’s (the green new deal) one person’s ideas ….”
    “Every time you say something, almost every time, you get it totally wrong. Even the simplest of things. Painful.”

    This is a false and totally unsubstantiated statement. And the point is that The Green New Deal is not the work of the Democrats as a whole, its from one group and was presented by one politician Ocasio-Cortez. But you seem determined to miss the point and prefer a nit picking criticism.

    No, this is you screwing up, again, justifying it, again, by moving the goal posts, again. Own up. You are supposedly too old for this kind of immature hyper-rationalizing of careless, or feckless, rhetoric.

    If you really meant your revisionist rhetoric, then, dude, let’s do some distance language training because your original and the above are not even close to the same thing.

    $50 an hour for you. A special upcount. (<– No, that's not a word. Don't get excited, anyone.)

  7. 207
    Killian says:

    Can we just ban right wingers? (No, not a serious suggestion, just evidencing exasperation with the unthinking.) To wit:

    Re #189 James said Also, insure that families don’t start having lots of kids to try to maximize the payout.

    Dear James,

    The payout would in no way, shape, or form cover the cost of adding a child to a family. Not even slightly close to doing so.

    At all.

    Like, ridiculously not close.

    This is another “welfare queen” argument that I find rather offensive. Please, do not repeat this error.

  8. 208
    zebra says:

    #196 Al Bundy,

    “…the gall of poor people, thinking that they have the same rights as their owners to choose their own lifestyle”

    But it isn’t the Evil Capitalist Billionaires, Al, for whom choices by “the poor” are a problem. It’s all the not-ECB people who need to have their status affirmed by having someone to whom they can feel superior and over whom they can exercise some control. Even some of the enlightened and “progressive” types who comment here.

    Consider that, even though we observe that women choose to have fewer children when they have a choice, unconstrained by economics, politics, or religion, the only things people want to talk about with respect to population involve control of a “lesser” group.

    It’s all up and down the wealth distribution, it is well established scientifically– it isn’t the one percent that want to keep you down– it’s the manager at McDonald’s if you are a worker, the “White” cop if you are a “Black” guy, the man if you are a woman, the Sunni if you are a Shiite, and so on. The Evil Capitalist 100 Billionaire compares himself to the EC 90B; if they fight over policy for the general population, that population is just chips in their game.

    It’s us monkeys, doing what monkeys do.

  9. 209

    K 191: 1. Neither your religion nor your ideology belong here.

    BPL: Sez you.

  10. 210
    James says:

    Egypt taking responsibility. Hopefully the beginning internationally.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-population-idUSKCN1Q91RJ

  11. 211
    mike says:

    The history of the Green New Deal is pretty interesting. It has been around for quite a while as a meme and umbrella platform for change. I first got excited about the GND when I heard Jill Stein pushing it in her Green Party campaign to become POTUS.

    I think AOC’s push for the Green New Deal is wonderful and pretty true to the Green Party version of the GND. AOC is a consummate politician. I hope she can prove to be an effective longterm politician.

    what is the history of the GND? LMGTFY:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

    Cheers

    Mike

  12. 212
    Al Bundy says:

    Justin Case anyone wants the numbers, supplying one adult with weed takes about a kilowatt-hour per day. The Closet Acres prototype system can be set up on top of a small dresser and cost me less than $200 to build. The biggest problem was developing the genetics. Seeds are illegal and quality is variable (because good weed has no seeds and the seed market is pay-your-money-and-pray-you-aren’t-ripped-off-or-buying-bunk). Because of prohibition it can take some breeding to get a proper marijuana permaculture system going. Of course, once established, seeds, clones, sexing, and breeding aren’t needed anymore. It’s just a kWh per day and a bit of pee and poop that you were going to pollute rivers with otherwise. (Plus negligibles, such as lime)

    Compare that to other forms of entertainment. If you want to save the planet, promote weed. Heck, the byproduct, incredibly soft and strong fibre, is planet-saving as well.

    And there is probably no oil significantly better for human health than marijuana-seed oil (marketed using the euphamism “hemp”).

    And outdoors? Weed does very well with minimal care and fertilizer. It is fantastic at erosion and flood control. Its fibre is tremendously better than cotton, which is why important documents, like the US constitution are printed on marijuana paper, and as you know, cotton is bug-prone and really degrades the land. What you might not know is that other than spider mites, weed is pest-free and builds soil.

    Oil, fibre, and safe fun, all via a soil-building saviour. So of course it’s illegal.

  13. 213
    mike says:

    how would the US fund the Green New Deal? Not a primary question because as Bucky Fuller said, we can afford to do anything we have to do, but for those who get stuck on this point:

    https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/financing-green-transition?mc_cid=ba4bb64291&mc_eid=caae4bf4cb

    In a similar vein, I read/skimmed a piece about quantitative easing and quantitative tightening:

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-fed-is-finally-seeing-the-light-on-quantitative-easing/

    This article also address how we might finance something like UBI, by simply expanding the money supply by creating money in the hands of individual/debtors rather than institutional/creditor banks.

    Mike

  14. 214
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @197

    Ok I accept the GND was formulated by some group and had origins in the Green Party. The original point I was making is it would likely change etc, but you seem more concerned to find fault.

    You offer no evidence of your claims I get nearly everything wrong. Could you explain in detail why you think “all my comments” and presumably internet links are “mostly all wrong” starting with comment 134?

    “There you go again Mr. Slippery Eel whose statements and opinions change with the wind. I hear UBI is now a good thing according to you. “A UBI solves it quite simply.” Last week it wasn’t.”

    Wrong, and you are taking my statement out of context without the full statement which was it solves the problem of the long term unemployable. My very first statement on a UBI is it could be a good answer to the welfare issues, but I’m still pondering on it, ( ie I am not 100% convinced). I’m still not 100% convinced, but it has merits, and would absolutely obviously answer the problem of the long term unemployable. You obviously struggle with anything complicated or nuanced :)

  15. 215
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL: sez you

    AB: sez the mods. Religion is off topic. The personal beef part is what we’re all working on swallowing instead of spitting.

    Killian,
    I have an idea for a business product your folks would love to get into. If it flies, I’d appreciate a cut, but it would be theirs. Can I email you?

  16. 216
    nigelj says:

    Zebra says “Consider that, even though we observe that women choose to have fewer children when they have a choice, unconstrained by economics, politics, or religion, the only things people want to talk about with respect to population involve control of a “lesser” group.”

    Can Zebra please name who he thinks wants to control some lesser group because with respect I find these generalised allegation false and a bit cowardly. I have never suggested controlling people, only things like better access to contraception. Its up to them whether they take advantage of this.

    It’s nice to talk about women unconstrained by politics religion and economics. Hopefully nobody would disagree, but how does Zebra propose we promote more of this? I have yet to hear one single government level policy specific from Zebra. Its just all so general and repetitive.

    One thing is for sure. We must fight to keep religion out of schools.

    “It’s all up and down the wealth distribution, it is well established scientifically– it isn’t the one percent that want to keep you down– it’s the manager at McDonald’s if you are a worker, the “White” cop if you are a “Black” guy, the man if you are a woman, the Sunni if you are a Shiite, and so on. The Evil Capitalist 100 Billionaire compares himself to the EC 90B; if they fight over policy for the general population, that population is just chips in their game. It’s us monkeys, doing what monkeys do.”

    Now this is a good point. It’s silly blaming only billionaires because it’s a huge cultural issue across the board, a giant greedy pecking order, ( and even alternative lifestyle communities sometimes end up like this) but I would make a couple of points:

    1) Billionaires do exert disproportionate influence on politicians through their power and wealth, eg the Koch brothers, and we need to somehow get this out of politics. I would love to see publicly financed election campaigns.

    2) We might be monkeys but monkeys are not just avaricious opportunists. Monkeys and humans both have some compassion and egalitarianism buried in them, and humans do demonstrate it on occasion, for example one of our large retail chains has started paying a “living wage”. Most people do support some level of wealth distribution because various countries do have policies. So how do we encourage more of this, and ensure it gets to the most needy people?

  17. 217
    James says:

    killian – 202. I don’t know if you are aware of it, though I suspect you are (in fact I suspect your demeanor is intentionally cultivated for some twisted reason), but you are what is popularly known as a ass clown. Really, what an insufferable narcissist, one of those guys that are ignorantly confident. Get over yourself. You’re only driving people away. If you and your friend Carrie could take your caustic baditudes elsewhere that’s be great. Thank you.

    To everyone else, my apologies.

  18. 218
    nigelj says:

    Interesting : “The announcement of the Green New Deal a couple weeks ago, followed by Trump’s national emergency declaration, has some conservative commentators worried – what if a Democratic president declared a national emergency for climate change?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/feb/21/stephen-colbert-trump-russia-mueller-investigation

  19. 219

    “A corporate tax cut is madness, because this totally undermines putting a carbon tax on a corporation.

    No, it’s the same logic WRT individual taxpayers–remember that all sorts of businesses pay carbon taxes, including those that are not very different from individuals in terms of scale, or, perhaps, consumption patterns.

    Say a florist shop, for example, delivers flowers to customers; unless they’ve already gone EV, they’ll pay more to provide that service to the public under a carbon tax regimen. By giving them a tax break (one, hopefully, commensurate with the added cost) they are protected from economic harm.

    However, now they have an incentive to buy a battery delivery fan, since they will receive the tax credit anyway, and now gas is pricier WRT alternatives.

    Obviously, the devil of all this is in the details, but in principle the price signal still works in the corporate case, just as in the individual one. To be clear, I’m not saying that I think this is necessary to the implementation of a carbon tax. But I do point out that it is not necessarily the ‘madness’ it may have seemed at first blush, either.

  20. 220
    Mal Adapted says:

    Al Bundy:

    Justin Case anyone wants the numbers, supplying one adult with weed takes about a kilowatt-hour per day…Oil, fibre, and safe fun, all via a soil-building saviour. So of course it’s illegal.

    I never thought I’d see the day, but recreational pot is legal where I live. Hallelujah 8^D!

  21. 221
    Carrie says:

    214 nigelj says: “but you seem more concerned to find fault.”

    Say #1 Mr Nitpicker of the whole forum? LOL

    But again you have it wrong. What I am concerned about is you are always getting things wrong. But worse than that you then repeatedly blame and nitpick people for pointing it out. I mean not merely an opinion that varies with other opinions, I am talking about getting everyday basic FACTS totally ass up backwards and wrong nigelj.

    Can you even tell the difference between you as a person and the basic DISINFORMATION you keep posting here?

    “You offer no evidence of your claims I get nearly everything wrong. Could you explain in detail why you think “all my comments” and presumably internet links are “mostly all wrong” starting with comment 134?”

    No I will not explain because you have already shown repeatedly to do so is a total waste of my time and anyone else who has ever bothered to try.

    Nevertheless I did post this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/02/forced-responses-feb-2019/comment-page-5/#comment-720593 So seriously nigelj wtf do you think that was? :-)

    Here’s the thing nigelj this what a “normal decent” person would do. Maybe you could use it a template for the future?

    1) You have a thought bubble about X
    2) You think of inclduing some thing s from memeory
    3) you start writing a post to this forum.
    4) STOP
    5) learn how to use Google search or any other search system to double check your memory of the facts.
    6) Bewary of sources, some are not legitimate and no better than you are.
    7) Copy and past small QUOTES into your comment – even at the bottom as a list.
    8) Include URL REF links to the KEY material you are relying upon
    9) Check EVERY ASPECT of the topic before POSTING and cross referernce your BELIEFS with verifiable credible sources…. does it all makes LOGICAL SENSE? Check it first, then decide what info is worth posting here.
    10) Ask readers to: “Advise you should they feel anything is out of order, or if they have better REFS because YOU MIGHT BE WRONG”
    11) HIT POST COMMENT

    Now after doing this on the subject of AOC and the GND what a decent person would do is to come back here and apologise to everyone and then to me personally for making such a botched effort of it and then BLAMING ME for your own failings.

    That’s what mature genuine people do. They admit their mistakes they take responsibility for them and then they try to rectify it.

    meaning … you make another post to CORRECT the RECORD of exactly you have gotten wrong before – follow my HINTS of what that is – and include URL LINKS you have now found to prove your point and your apology is genuine.

    I am not here to fix your mistakes nigelj. That’s your job. You rarely ever do and that’s why I have said the things I have said recently and for a very long time. Take the hint. Or don’t. I don’t care really. You rarely if ever admit your errors instead to slip and slide and deny it.

    I usually ignore you silly errors but this time I made an exception because they were so unbelievably bad mistakes. You can’t deny these ones. Too obvious your knowledge of the GND was minimal at best.

    How about offering up something worth reading instead .. something with a degree of expertise and higher knowledge about a subject.. on any subject would be a start.

    I Predict No Change! :-)

  22. 222
    Carrie says:

    217 James says: “Get over yourself.”

    I have a much better idea James and that’s to get over yourself. :-)

    Insufferable narcissists, those guys that are ignorantly confident, applies to those who believe they have a level of expertise they do not actually possess.

    eg Psychologist Stephen Johnson writes that a narcissist is someone who has “buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self.” This alternate persona often comes across as grandiose, “above others,” self-absorbed, and highly conceited.

    and A gaslighter’s statements and accusations are often based on deliberate falsehoods and calculated marginalization.

    1. Frequent Lies and Exaggerations
    2. Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticized
    3. False Image Projection
    eg “My husband always wants people to see him as successful, powerful, and envy-worthy, no matter how shaky his real life actually is.” —Anonymous partner of narcissist
    4. Rule Breaking and Boundary Violation
    5. Emotional Invalidation and Coercion
    6. Manipulation: The Use or Control of Others as an Extension of Oneself
    eg Both narcissists and gaslighters have a tendency to make decisions for others to suit their own agenda. Narcissists may use their romantic partner, child, family, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams, or cover-up weaknesses and shortcomings. Narcissists are also fond of using guilt, blame, and victimhood as manipulative devices.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters

    You might wish to check the literature that you’re falsely using as a basis of your current judgements. They are seriously flawed old chap. :-)

    I do have an “attitude” true, what this means is that it places me in the domain of the “good communicator” who is willing to stand up for his principles, values, ideals, and personal beliefs. So at least you have understood that if little else. I am no victim. Neither am I a perpetrator. Same goes for Killian, imho, no matter how many people do not appreciate such clarity of thought. Gratefully we also both have a GSOH. :-)

  23. 223
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @219

    Ok I can accept a florist shop may spend a tax cut on something environmentally friendly, but can you see an oil company subject to a corporate tax cut changing their behaviour? I doubt it because of the nature of their business, I cant see much reason to. (This assumes the tax cut is significant).

    Remember also that the reason for a carbon tax and dividend concept is political acceptability. Its not ideal and the wider the dividend and tax cut becomes, the less effective the carbon tax (or fee) might become. I appeciate politics involves compromise, but we dont have much time left to make a difference.

    ———

    Al Bundy, I support legalisation of cannabis. The case has been well made. I suggest this is not really the place to get into it too much.

  24. 224
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @221

    So you falsely accuse me of repeatedly getting nearly every fact wrong out of the dozens of comments I have posted, and so far you have one example: I said the GND was the idea of one person rather than a group. You can’t back up your statement, so kindly stop slandering me.

    And let me remind you of the things you get wrong. MAR has posted literally dozens of statements that you have the facts wrong on the UV thread, and not once have you owned up to being wrong. Instead you respond with streams of nasty invective. I notice some guy called James has made the same point @217.So kindly get your own house in order first:)

  25. 225
    nigelj says:

    Al Bundy @210, yes you are possibly right. I have also already said a UBI may be inevitable if AI increases unemployment or pushes wages right down.

    I mean I think a UBI looks like a good idea in principle, and I have read a book on it, but there are some legitimate questions about it such as whether it discourages work. I doubt it would, but several countries are trialling it, easily enough googled, and this is a good approach dont you think? So I think I would be guided by the results of the trials and not jump to conclusions either way.

    Then the hard part. Convincing the right wing.

  26. 226
    Mr. Know It All says:

    Lots of discussion above about the Green New Deal. AOC has compared it to things like WW2, the race to the moon, the New Deal, etc.

    In this video an economist provides historical perspective on all of those and compares them to the GND:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-s6Nr1-R-w

  27. 227
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel,
    I tend to use the “generic you”. I wasn’t saying anything about the ” you you”.

    The kids going without? I agree, which is why I’m opposed to cash benefits beyond UBI. If kids get a pair of shoes instead of parents getting $30, all kids have shoes and parents’ willpower is not tested.

    Congrats on quitting cancerettes. After about five years, I think, cancer risk drops close to normal. Of course, you have screwed your chance to be an Olympic champion runner.

    Then again, weed and the loss of a leg has probably blown mine

  28. 228
    Killian says:

    Re #204 Carrie spoke sone truth to laziness.

    I didn’t know of any other history, but I think anything deserving of the name came out of the Green Party, at least inthe U.S.

    I should have dug deeper, but didn’t remember hearing the term b4 Jill Stein.

    My bad.

    ***************

    Re nigelj,

    Well… he does slowly take on others’ positions, so I guess my claim he is unteachable isn’t entirely true. He’s never admitted it or given credit where due. I think he thinks they’re his own incredible discoveries.

    I try thrse days to just address a specific point and ignore the rest. I still fail too often.

    Pick your battles…

  29. 229
    Killian says:

    Dear James,

    Your words, like unto stars. I shall navel gaze with them on loop, tapping my mini-gong.

  30. 230
    Killian says:

    Al Bundy,

    Not sure who “my people” are, but sure. Try killiangeg at gmail.

  31. 231

    AB 215: AB: sez the mods. Religion is off topic.

    BPL: Then don’t bring up rights, which necessarily lead into metaphysics, since as the OP noted, they don’t exist in “nature.”

  32. 232
    Mr. Know It All says:

    MIT says the energy system of the future is closer than we think:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-20/mit-energy-system-future-closer-we-think

    Sort the comments (viewing options) by “Best”. Some good ones.

  33. 233
    Hank Roberts says:

    A question from Soylent News:

    NASA [Allegedly] Hides Page Saying the Sun is Primary Climate Driver and Global Cooling Likel
    | from the but-Al-Gore-told-us-different dept.
    | posted by cmn32480 on Thursday February 21, @13:19 (News)
    | https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=19/02/21/054247
    +———————————————————————————————-+

    An Anonymous Coward writes:

    The supposed deleted text:

    The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

    Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

    However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

    Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

    Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

    [0]http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

    Supposed screenshot of the page: [1]https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/debunk/us/nasa/nasa-climate-forcings-2010.gif Supposed archive.org link (no longer works): [2]https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/]

    Articles from 2010-2011 quoting the link and then noting it has disappeared: [3]https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/climate_change_its_the_sun_stu.html [4]https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/nasas_muzzle_hustle.html

    Is this fake news? Can anyone here verify whether this page ever existed (or not)?

  34. 234
    James says:

    “Carrie” – 222, “I do have an “attitude” true, what this means is that it places me in the domain of the “good communicator” who is willing to stand up for his principles, values, ideals, and personal beliefs.” [Emphasis mine]

    Freudian slip?

    I’ve looked back over a lot killian/carrie’s old posts. Always the bile. Always the insults. Always the smug know-it-allness. Always accusing others of doing the exact same things which they are doing in spades. #222 is a perfect example. Wow! There’s an internet name for such people. Troll. Posting for the reaction and distraction. Use inflammatory language. Perhaps they/he believe that they/he are being ‘fashionably argumentative’, and that that makes them look more scientific? More and more I’m convinced that it’s on purpose. I mean, clearly they (he) are turning people off. Is that the objective? Turn lurkers away? Refuse to talk to others like civilized adults, instead rely on the juvenile tactic of elementary school bullying giving people the impression that that’s how environmentalists behave? Pretend that they (he) have some ‘higher awareness’ that others simply can’t see. And people here just keep falling into their/his spider trap. Month after month. After month. What a waste.

    http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/

    I do wish they’d just go away.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/forced-responses-dec-2018/comment-page-13/#comment-717802

    This is all I intend to say on the matter.

  35. 235

    #232, KIA–

    Thanks for an interesting link. The result isn’t really clearly articulated, though. For example, what was the conclusion WRT ERCOT, which provided his primary study area? It doesn’t say. (But the link for the the original study is given, so I’ll check that out.)

    This is a startling proposal though, even if a sidebar to the main point:

    MIT engineers, for example, have recently proposed a concept for a renewable storage system that would store solar and wind energy in the form of white-hot liquid silicon. The design, dubbed ‘sun in a box’, stores heat generated by excess electricity from solar or wind in tanks of white-hot molten silicon and then converts the light from the glowing metal back into electricity when it’s needed.

    OK, silicon is cheap and plentiful, but photoelectric conversion isn’t exactly a poster child for efficiency. (Though maybe the conversion could be optimized for the characteristics of the radiative emissions of white-hot silicon?) I note its melting and boiling points are second among “metals and metalloids” only to boron, so given a suitable container–ceramic, I’d presume–you can get it hotter than most other choices, and so store more energy.

  36. 236

    Further on the hybrid RE system, per John Deutch–couldn’t find a transcript or print summary, and am not willing to devote 45 minutes to an online lecture. But here’s an alternate link for the video, for those who feel differently:

    https://energy.stanford.edu/events/energy-seminar-john-deutch-demonstrating-near-carbon-free-electricity-generation-renewables

  37. 237
    nigelj says:

    Carrie @222 denies being a narcissist and says a narcissist is among other things : “2. Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticize, 4. Rule Breaking and Boundary Violation 5. Emotional Invalidation and Coercion.”

    Sounds a lot like Carrie and one or two others ! :) She may not be a narcissist, on just a couple of criteria, but her attitude certainly invites the comparison!

    Here are some classic examples Carrie for example: “@121 on UV ” 112 Al Bundy says: “Don’t you agree? Carrie: ”I make it a rule to never agree with impertinent fools or fools in general. Sorry.”

    “On the FR thread 155 James, get a life. I’ve no time for small minded people ”

    “151 All Bundy, yeah memory, whatever. Knock yourself out.”

    “People are really quite dumb often and fail to think things through, so don’t feel bad you are not alone here. :-)”

    Carrie says “I do have an “attitude” true, what this means is that it places me in the domain of the “good communicator who is willing to stand up for his principles, values, ideals, and personal beliefs. ”

    No Carrie. Its very hard to see how insults like the ones above are good communication. You also lack clarity at times.

    “I am no victim. Neither am I a perpetrator.”

    This is largely true but you are overly reactive. You react to even the slightest most politely worded criticism of your comments (which are sometimes very valid criticisms) with a stream of wild silly accusation and mocking abuse (see above). Please realise when people criticise other peoples comments, they are not trying to put anyone down (normally) its about teasing out information, like figuring out if maybe you are onto something they have missed. So chill out a bit. Exercise some good old self control like the rest of us.

    But some of your copy and paste is good, and I’m the first to admit I’m not perfect.

  38. 238
    Mr. Know It All says:

    233 – Hank

    Thank you, Kevin, BPL and the others who work hard to provide information on the many climate science topics.

    Did NASA hide the page? They are hiding something from ME, how about YOU:
    https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

    It says “ACCESS DENIED You are not authorized to access this page.” Weird for sure.

    However the page is viewable on the Internet Archives:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

    I will not divulge my sources so THEY aren’t attacked.

  39. 239
    Mr. Know It All says:

    233 – Hank
    AH HA! My sources aren’t as exclusive as I thought. I see that your comment also included the archived page. :)

    I don’t see anything false, or wrong in the archived page. It’s all basically still true, right? The sun is the primary forcing of earth’s climate, and clouds, aerosols could force us into cooling if they were applied in a particular way, right? And the orbit is tending toward cooling, right? It’s just that CO2 warming is increasing faster than those other drivers of cooling, right? Maybe CO2 will save us from the next ice age. ;)

  40. 240
    Al Bundy says:

    BPL,

    No. Rights arise from morals, which are simply statements of efficiency. Are you saying that since religious sorts have interest in a topic science is forbidden to delve into that topic? “inevitable” sure sounds like forbidden, especially since the only “inevitable” is that you will go off-topic. Not my problem.

    Carrie,

    When lurkers chime in, listen.

    Kevin, Nigel, Zeb, et al,
    UBI is being warped by the right into communism. It has nothing to do with equal results. It’s just a way to ensure everyone survives. And since there is zero deduction regardless of income there is zero disincentive to work, other than for the boat anchors you’d rather leave on shore anyway.

  41. 241
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel,
    You (I think) brought up the marriage gap with regard to UBI. I’ve pondered. Perhaps it is best to think of it like roommates. Two guys sharing an apt get married to roommates. Two people change addresses and nothing else changes. So it isn’t a “singles” tax but a carbon-spewing living-alone tax.

  42. 242
    Al Bundy says:

    Killian: my guys
    AB: you have contacts. They have contacts. Two degrees should get it to where it needs to be.

  43. 243
    Al Bundy says:

    Who gets the carbon tax dividend, humans or businesses?

    Ya want fair, give it to people.
    You want rational results, ….(sorry. I can’t type it)

    But, combined with UBI…

    And note that minimum wage is unnecessary with UBI. $5 an hour is just fine when it’s pocket money. Talk about a competitive advantage. Add in single-payer healthcare and which country could hope to compete using a traditional model?

  44. 244

    Hank, The earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun is obviously an important driving feature as it leads to daily variations as well as seasonal variations.

    NASA JPL also has had recent investigations into the role that lunar tidal forcing plays as measured via QSCAT (ocean winds), TMI/TRMM (tropical rainfall), OLR (outgoing radiation), Significant Wave Height and in Tropical Instability Waves

    https://mdc.coaps.fsu.edu/scatterometry/meeting/docs/2009_may/posters/perigaud.pdf

    However, this research has since been dropped by JPL, which means there is an opportunity for others to follow through. IMO, as with the sun, it has little to do with AGW but everything to do with understanding fundamental climate variability.

  45. 245
    Al Bundy says:

    Nigel,
    Actually, weed is totally on topic. Colorado’s electricity usage went up 2%, which is a big number for something that should have negligible effect. How that relates to total weedwatts is a serious issue (like, as if nobody grew before).

    But you are right that the conversation shouldn’t veer off a cliff

  46. 246
    Killian says:

    Re #217 James said Wah!!!!

    James, you spewed Right Wing tripe on this board. Your treatment by me for it was rather jocular, but your emotional, immature response to being called out relatively softly for spouting long-debunked talking points just says it all, eh?

    in fact I suspect your demeanor is intentionally cultivated for some twisted reason

    I am always and ever myself. It does get me in loads of hot water, but who cares about the anger of fools? I have been on this forum for over ten years without ever changing my style, and the same for all other fora, so go buy yourself a goddamned clue.

    The only one of the two of us being an asshat in this exchange is you. First, you show racism/classism in your RW talking points, then you groundlessly attack another’s character because you were called out.

    Your comment at 217 should have been Bore Holed, but… ergo, this board is always covered in the dung.

    Stop playing with dung.

  47. 247
    Carrie says:

    224 nigelj says: “so kindly stop slandering me”

    I speak the truth Kimosabe. 100% your problem if you cannot see it nor admit it. I even gave you advice on how to avert it, then refuse to apply it. And still you attack mindlessly, lying and ‘slandering’ and ‘gaslighting’ as you go. You are your own problem Niglej. Pleased don’t shoot the messengers. :-)

  48. 248
    Killian says:

    Re #232 Mr. Know It All said MIT says the energy system of the future is closer than we think

    Let me remind all, the only energy system(s) that matter long-term (or until we are mining the solar system), must first and foremost be sustainable. If they are not, we may use up the resources need to get to the point of mining the solar system. (And to, in 3 billion years or so colonize places not being eaten up by our expanding sun.)

    Relatedly, the U.S., and some other OECD nations, already have enough renewables for a simplified world.

  49. 249
    Carrie says:

    233 Hank Roberts says: Is this fake news? Can anyone here verify whether this page ever existed (or not)?

    The place to search for it the Way back machine
    https://archive.org/web/

    If you cannot find it on a nasa site specifically, you might find the info being copied onto another site around the same time.

    Be that as it may, the content sure is true. :-)

  50. 250
    Cranky Carrie says:

    228 Killian, it doesn’t matter. What you said about Jill Stein etc was correct. Everything nigelj said was not. No body knows or can remember everything about a topic, and no body needs to. But to always assume you do, whether it’s about native lifestyles, the GND or all that wasted money welfare recipients spend on drugs each week, and then share your precious “thought bubbles” not grounded in truth only to deny it when called on it, is well, quite painful to watch. As you know.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.