Climate Change and Social Upheaval

[domer76]

Buckle up, folks. Things will almost certainly get worse.

Poisoned crops
Forced migration
Lack of food
Lack of drinking water
No jobs = poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s/?no_nav=true

[PoliTalker]

Hello domer76,

Buckle up, folks. Things will almost certainly get worse.

Poisoned crops
Forced migration
Lack of food
Lack of drinking water
No jobs = poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s/?no_nav=true

No problem.

Technology to the rescue.

There are all kinds of solutions to the climate crisis being worked on by very smart people with lots of funding.

We just don't hear about them too much because it's good news stuff and we are hooked on bad news. We don't really go for good news very much because it doesn't sell advertising.

Science will save humanity from itself.

I have faith in science.

[domer76]

Hello domer76,



No problem.

Technology to the rescue.

There are all kinds of solutions to the climate crisis being worked on by very smart people with lots of funding.

We just don't hear about them too much because it's good news stuff and we are hooked on bad news. We don't really go for good news very much because it doesn't sell advertising.

Science will save humanity from itself.

I have faith in science.

Only if the science-deniers, the ignorant politicians and their equally ignorant constituents, get out of the way.

Example? Manchin, his coal-dependent state, and his donors.

[cancel2 2022]

The Trick: Getting the Story Right
POSTED ON 30 SEP 21
BY JOHN RIDGWAYIN UNCATEGORIZED
4 MINUTES READ
This was originally posted as a spoof disclosure of the BBC drama’s script. But now that the programme has been aired, this article simply serves as a reminder that sometimes the truth can be funnier than its spoof.

——————

Scene 1: Dr Phil Jones is at home with his wife knitting gloves for orphaned babies, when the telephone rings.

Telephone: Ring, ring.

Dr Jones: Hello, Dr Jones speaking.

Pause

Dr Jones: No! Say it’s not true. That’s not possible. I had already told everyone to delete them.

Pause

Dr Jones: Okay, I’ll be in first thing in the morning.

Mrs Jones: Is there a problem darling?

Dr Jones: Possibly. The Dean wants to see me first thing. There has been a security breach and some things I said in some emails may be given a lot of publicity.

Mrs Jones: But surely that’s a good thing. Your friend Michael always seems to think so.

Dr Jones: Yes, I know my sweet. But these are things that the Dean thinks won’t look good once they have been taken out of context and deliberately misconstrued.

Mrs Jones: But who would do such a thing?

Dr Jones: Oh my darling, you are so naïve, and that’s why I love you. The truth is that there are people out there who want to destroy the world and the only way they can do that is if they first destroy my reputation as a top class scientist who always tells the truth.

Mrs Jones: But darling, that is the truth isn’t it? Darling, why are you looking at me like that?

——————

Scene 2: The Dean’s office.

Dean: Ah, Phil. Do come in and take a seat. I’m afraid the CRU is in a spot of bother. You see, there has been a leak.

Dr Jones: By that, do you mean cyberterrorism perpetrated by climate change deniers?

Dean: We will say that, but the truth is we don’t know. But that’s not important right now. We need to talk about your email correspondence. Some of it looks a bit dodgy.

Dr Jones: For example?

Dean: Well what about this one here where you talk about ‘Nature’s Trick’?

Dr Jones: I simply meant that the deception we pulled off in an article in Nature could be used again for our latest slide show. What’s wrong with that? I think you will find that ‘deception’ is innocent mathematical terminology.

Dean: That’s good. We’ll use that one. ‘Trick’ is an ambiguous term and we can play on that. But what about ‘Hiding the decline’? That seems to disambiguate somewhat.

Dr Jones: Not at all. We were not hiding anything that shouldn’t have been hidden.

Dean: Keep talking.

Dr Jones: Well, we all know that temperatures have continued to rise, so showing a proxy temperature reconstruction that goes the other way would only confuse. We didn’t want to confuse the audience. Hence, ‘Hide the decline’.

Dean: But doesn’t that also mean that you hid from the audience the fact that the proxy reconstruction was totally unreliable?

Dr Jones: Your point being?

Dean: Okay, let’s move on. What about this where you said that the death of <redacted> was ‘in a way good news’?

Dr Jones: Banter.

Dean: What?

Dr Jones: Yes, it’s all banter really. Besides which, the Christians said the same thing regarding the death of Jesus but no one is going after them – well, not any more.

Dean: Yes, but Jesus was one of us. We can’t say such things about our opponents. It’s not a good look.

Dr Jones looks hurt.

Dean: Okay, I’ll write down ‘just banter’. But we also need to talk about this one where you say that you aren’t going to hand over the data to someone who just wants to prove you wrong.

Dr Jones: But you have to understand what a pillock this guy was. Every day, questions, questions, questions. No matter how much we stonewalled him, he just wouldn’t go away. I couldn’t get any work done. How am I to save the world with such distraction? I am the head of the CRU, part of the finest academic organisation in the world. My word should have been enough. Oh but no! This guy wanted to see data. He was obsessed with data. That’s the sort of person I was dealing with.

Dean: But couldn’t you have just handed it over?

Dr Jones: You wouldn’t be asking that if you had seen it.

Dean: Even so, scientific method and all that.

Dr Jones: So what are you saying? Do you want my resignation?

Dean: God no! We have the reputation of the UEA to think about. But there is going to have to be an investigation, and I am going to have to make quite a few phone calls to my friends in the Royal Society. I just needed to talk to you first to get the story straight. I’ve written down ‘cyberterrorists, banter and mathematical jargon’. Is that it?

Dr Jones: Yep, that just about covers it. Will that be all?

Dean: Yes Phil. You go home to your good wife now and take some time off to finish the orphans’ knitwear. Don’t worry about anything. We scientists stick together.

Dr Jones: Thank you Dean.

Dr Jones gets up to leave.

Dean: Oh! There is just one more thing that I almost forgot. What’s this about the Freedom of Information requests?

Dr Jones: Oh fuck!

THE END

https://cliscep.com/2021/09/30/the-t...e-story-right/

[Trumpet]

This is what happens when there's unlimited political contributions from special interest corrupting our elected officials; this causes our elected officials to focus on what keeps their political contributions coming rather than the real issues, and in this case it's the fossil fuel industry protecting their profits at the expense of the environmental well being of our planet.

[cancel2 2022]

The summarizing text from another new study (Ollila, 2021) bluntly asserts the substantial increase in downwelling SW radiation from 2000-2019 demonstrates “there are natural climate drivers that have rapid and significant temperature impacts exceeding the anthropogenic drivers,” and that any temperature increase since 2015-’16 “cannot be due to anthropogenic reasons.”

Global Circulation Models (GCMs) Simulate the Current Temperature Only If the Shortwave Radiation Anomaly of the 2000s Has Been Omitted

July 2021
Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology

DOI:10.9734/CJAST/2021/v40i1731433

The research article of Gillett et al. was published in Nature Climate Change (NCC) in March 2021. The objective of the NCC study was to simulate human-induced forcings to warming by applying 13 CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6) climate models. NCC did not accept the author's remarks as a "Matters arising" article. The purpose of this article is to detail the original three remarks and one additional remark: 1) the discrepancy between the graphs and reported numerical values, 2) the forcings of aerosols and clouds, 3) the positive water feedback, and 4) the calculation basis of the Paris agreement. The most important finding is that General Circulation Models (GCMs) used in simulations omit the significant shortwave anomaly from 2001 to 2019, which causes a temperature error of 0.3°C according to climate change physics of Gillett et al. For the year 2019, this error is 0.8°C showing the magnitude of shortwave anomaly impact. The main reason for this error turns out to be the positive water feedback generally applied in climate models. The scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement is faulty for the same reason.

https://www.journalcjast.com/index.p...cle/view/31433

[Trumpet]

The Trick: Getting the Story Right
POSTED ON 30 SEP 21
BY JOHN RIDGWAYIN UNCATEGORIZED
4 MINUTES READ
This was originally posted as a spoof disclosure of the BBC drama’s script. But now that the programme has been aired, this article simply serves as a reminder that sometimes the truth can be funnier than its spoof.

——————

Scene 1: Dr Phil Jones is at home with his wife knitting gloves for orphaned babies, when the telephone rings.

Telephone: Ring, ring.

Dr Jones: Hello, Dr Jones speaking.

Pause

Dr Jones: No! Say it’s not true. That’s not possible. I had already told everyone to delete them.

Pause

Dr Jones: Okay, I’ll be in first thing in the morning.

Mrs Jones: Is there a problem darling?

Dr Jones: Possibly. The Dean wants to see me first thing. There has been a security breach and some things I said in some emails may be given a lot of publicity.

Mrs Jones: But surely that’s a good thing. Your friend Michael always seems to think so.

Dr Jones: Yes, I know my sweet. But these are things that the Dean thinks won’t look good once they have been taken out of context and deliberately misconstrued.

Mrs Jones: But who would do such a thing?

Dr Jones: Oh my darling, you are so naïve, and that’s why I love you. The truth is that there are people out there who want to destroy the world and the only way they can do that is if they first destroy my reputation as a top class scientist who always tells the truth.

Mrs Jones: But darling, that is the truth isn’t it? Darling, why are you looking at me like that?

——————

Scene 2: The Dean’s office.

Dean: Ah, Phil. Do come in and take a seat. I’m afraid the CRU is in a spot of bother. You see, there has been a leak.

Dr Jones: By that, do you mean cyberterrorism perpetrated by climate change deniers?

Dean: We will say that, but the truth is we don’t know. But that’s not important right now. We need to talk about your email correspondence. Some of it looks a bit dodgy.

Dr Jones: For example?

Dean: Well what about this one here where you talk about ‘Nature’s Trick’?

Dr Jones: I simply meant that the deception we pulled off in an article in Nature could be used again for our latest slide show. What’s wrong with that? I think you will find that ‘deception’ is innocent mathematical terminology.

Dean: That’s good. We’ll use that one. ‘Trick’ is an ambiguous term and we can play on that. But what about ‘Hiding the decline’? That seems to disambiguate somewhat.

Dr Jones: Not at all. We were not hiding anything that shouldn’t have been hidden.

Dean: Keep talking.

Dr Jones: Well, we all know that temperatures have continued to rise, so showing a proxy temperature reconstruction that goes the other way would only confuse. We didn’t want to confuse the audience. Hence, ‘Hide the decline’.

Dean: But doesn’t that also mean that you hid from the audience the fact that the proxy reconstruction was totally unreliable?

Dr Jones: Your point being?

Dean: Okay, let’s move on. What about this where you said that the death of <redacted> was ‘in a way good news’?

Dr Jones: Banter.

Dean: What?

Dr Jones: Yes, it’s all banter really. Besides which, the Christians said the same thing regarding the death of Jesus but no one is going after them – well, not any more.

Dean: Yes, but Jesus was one of us. We can’t say such things about our opponents. It’s not a good look.

Dr Jones looks hurt.

Dean: Okay, I’ll write down ‘just banter’. But we also need to talk about this one where you say that you aren’t going to hand over the data to someone who just wants to prove you wrong.

Dr Jones: But you have to understand what a pillock this guy was. Every day, questions, questions, questions. No matter how much we stonewalled him, he just wouldn’t go away. I couldn’t get any work done. How am I to save the world with such distraction? I am the head of the CRU, part of the finest academic organisation in the world. My word should have been enough. Oh but no! This guy wanted to see data. He was obsessed with data. That’s the sort of person I was dealing with.

Dean: But couldn’t you have just handed it over?

Dr Jones: You wouldn’t be asking that if you had seen it.

Dean: Even so, scientific method and all that.

Dr Jones: So what are you saying? Do you want my resignation?

Dean: God no! We have the reputation of the UEA to think about. But there is going to have to be an investigation, and I am going to have to make quite a few phone calls to my friends in the Royal Society. I just needed to talk to you first to get the story straight. I’ve written down ‘cyberterrorists, banter and mathematical jargon’. Is that it?

Dr Jones: Yep, that just about covers it. Will that be all?

Dean: Yes Phil. You go home to your good wife now and take some time off to finish the orphans’ knitwear. Don’t worry about anything. We scientists stick together.

Dr Jones: Thank you Dean.

Dr Jones gets up to leave.

Dean: Oh! There is just one more thing that I almost forgot. What’s this about the Freedom of Information requests?

Dr Jones: Oh fuck!

THE END

https://cliscep.com/2021/09/30/the-t...e-story-right/

Climate Scepticism is he usual climate disinformation site, so what does this prove??????????

[PoliTalker]

Hello domer76,

Only if the science-deniers, the ignorant politicians and their equally ignorant constituents, get out of the way.

Example? Manchin, his coal-dependent state, and his donors.

Several solutions are being worked on.

Naturally we cannot count on enough people reducing CO2 output to make the kind of difference we need.

Conservatives. yick.

One possible solution is DAC, Direct Air Capture.

This would be a system where a machine or many machines extracts CO2 from the atmosphere.

There is an interesting article on it in the current Mother Jones

It would cost about $5 Trillion per year. The whole planet would have to pay that, but it would create lot of jobs. It's probably worth it.

And it would become cost-efficient in time.

Another one is a great story I saw the other day. Might have been on PBS. A new white paint has been developed which reflects so much UV that objects painted with it remain cool in the sun. The developer says it would only require covering 1% of the planet with this stuff to turn warming around.

[Jack]

Buckle up, folks. Things will almost certainly get worse.

Poisoned crops
Forced migration
Lack of food
Lack of drinking water
No jobs = poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s/?no_nav=true

Don't worry. According to the Democrats, they can all come here. (Democrats are Nice People, why worry)

[Lionfish]

[Lionfish]

[Lionfish]

[Cypress]

Hello domer76,



No problem.

Technology to the rescue.

There are all kinds of solutions to the climate crisis being worked on by very smart people with lots of funding.

We just don't hear about them too much because it's good news stuff and we are hooked on bad news. We don't really go for good news very much because it doesn't sell advertising.

Science will save humanity from itself.

I have faith in science.

It comes down to political will, not science.

50 years after the Apollo moon landings, we could have put humans on Mars by now, if there was the political will to do it.

[redfish]

Buckle up, folks. Things will almost certainly get worse.

Poisoned crops
Forced migration
Lack of food
Lack of drinking water
No jobs = poverty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...s/?no_nav=true

Climate crisis is a myth. The climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing hundreds of millions of years after the last human is gone. Man has zero affect on climate and cannot slow, stop, or reverse changes. the climate or earth is controlled by the sun, the slight wobbles on its axis as it turns, and variations in ocean currents. Using fossil fuels has no affect on climate. It may cause pollution of air and water and we should all be concerned by that, but the left's false narrative about a relationship between pollution and climate is BUNK.

[redfish]

Hello domer76,



Several solutions are being worked on.

Naturally we cannot count on enough people reducing CO2 output to make the kind of difference we need.

Conservatives. yick.

One possible solution is DAC, Direct Air Capture.

This would be a system where a machine or many machines extracts CO2 from the atmosphere.

There is an interesting article on it in the current Mother Jones

It would cost about $5 Trillion per year. The whole planet would have to pay that, but it would create lot of jobs. It's probably worth it.

And it would become cost-efficient in time.

Another one is a great story I saw the other day. Might have been on PBS. A new white paint has been developed which reflects so much UV that objects painted with it remain cool in the sun. The developer says it would only require covering 1% of the planet with this stuff to turn warming around.

CO2 is not a pollutant. without it there would be no plant life on earth, and without plant life, no human life. CO2 makes up .039% of earth's atmosphere, it has been at that level since we have been able to measure it. Please stop the lies.