Science wins again w/ Global Warming

There’s an advocacy group I’m currently talking to about a role in the UK that’s pushing for reasonable, engineered solutions for the energy transition. They’re focused on retraining offshore hands for decommissioning operations, wind farm installation/maintenance, and other comparably salaried jobs.

I’d be thrilled if I got it. The sad, torturous part? I’d have to move to Edinburgh.

 

Climate change is caused by many things The tilt of the earth's axis (it occillates). The earth's orbit becomes more elliptical and then more circular over thousands of years. The sun gets hotter and colder. Greenhouse games affect temperature. Cloud formations change as the temperature changes, allowing excess heat to escape somewhat (Richard Lindzen Iris effect).

The smart way to reduce or eliminate excess heat would be through technological breakthroughs. That requires health thy economies which requires a lot of energy production

 

It is. Texas is at the heart of US green energy production. However, I agree with Peter Zeihan that it's kind of stupid to invest in solar in areas where it doesn't really work that well (at this point), i.e. pretty much anywhere outside of the SW to Lower MW. Texas truly is ENERGY (like in the original Rollerball), as they lead the nation in all of it.

Also, not just leaks, but capturing all that stuff we burn off every day. Go look at the US at night. They didn't build a new Chicago in N Dakota. That's NG burning into the atmosphere.

 

I love GB culturally, but as a native Floridian, the weather would break me. Just the lack of sun in general.

 

One upside: Edinburgh is pretty amazing. I know it is hard moving away, but you could certainly do a lot worse than Edinburgh.

 

You forgot…huge downside.
It’s attracting American libbies.
Not good at all.

 

You would have easier access to great Scotch!

 

It’s one of my favorite cities. Hell, Scotland is one of my favorite places. Are you familiar with “hellwalking?” Trespassing isn’t really a thing in rural areas and people just… hike everywhere. It’s so much fun.

 

Then what do you mean by: "please stop the paranoia. "The world is about to end" = religious zealot or climate change activist."?

Because I don't see anyone claiming the world is about to end. That would qualify as a strawman arguement, IMO.

It seems to me that you saying the "paranoia" needs to end is insunuating that AGW isn't happening and you're using this article to illustrate that insinuation.

 

Climate change CAN be caused by many things. This is true. We saw it with the Permian Extinction, the Great Oxidation Event, and even due to variances in Earth’s orbit.

However, current warming trends are directly linked with anthropogenic activity, and specifically via greenhouse gasses. It’s simple physics and thermodynamics.

Excess CO2 also affects ocean pH and will harm earth’s biggest lung: algae.

Wood’s Hole (yes, the Titanic folks) has a great article on this:

Ocean Acidification

The issue isn’t that the Earth is going to cook off into Venus 2.0. The problem is they we’re knowingly changing the climate too rapidly for life to adapt, hence the proposed Anthropocene Extinction that’s already underway.

The Earth will recover. Jury’s out if we will for a host of socioeconomic and resource reasons.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to ask if dragging our feet is the worst possible thing for future generations. Most, if not all, posters will be dead any dying once we see the expect 2C temperature difference. Our grandkids, however, will likely experience the resulting resource wars for arable land and water.

Look what a regional war did to grain prices. Now, imagine the already-observed desertification and reduction in key watersheds affecting key rural regions in North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and parts of Asia.

There are a legion of papers on this. It’s rightly quite horrifying.

Edit: here’s one

Climate change and food security - PMC

 

That is false. This paper stated that one potential scenario that had been itself theorized may not happen as quickly as some may have theorized it. As the paper points out, this only impacts the upper edge of the prediction space and not most of it. The predictions are not "erroneous." The predictions are not point estimates but rather a range of potential outcomes. As of now, temperature increases, and related predictions to issues such as sea level rise and extreme weather activity, have been mostly been occurring around the middle of the prediction space (i.e., somewhere near the mean and median estimates).

Yeah, that is a lot of goal post shifting. Rather than relying on your shifting explanations of what you said, here is a direct quote of what you said:

So you "lampooned" climate change activists with a strawman argument. Then, when people returned that tone to address your post, you have now whined for pages that people are being mean to you. Perhaps, if you want people to not react like that, don't begin by calling them paranoid and comparing them to a "religious zealot."

 

Must be nice living in your little circle

 

Having a logical approach to transitioning away from fossil fuels is a worth topic of discussion.

I think your OP is getting so much slack because it isn't questioning an energy transition. It comes across as questioning the validity of AGW as a theory by bringing up this new information that something once predicted may not happen as soon as expected.

The post, I believe, is being viewed as an attempt to dismiss AGW and the threats it poses rather than attempting to have a discussion around an energy transition - which seems to be what you wanted to say.

 

Even if one believes this the smart move is to keep world economies strong so a high tech solution to global warming can be created. That means initiatives like the Kyoto Protocols or the Paris Climate Accords are no5 the way to go.

 

You think our resident radical republicans are farting so much they can't think straight? Lay off the beans, people! Give it a rest!