The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. The argument is that volcanos have caused climate change in the PAST, so they COULD be the cause now.

2. Completely ignores the scale of the eruptions that can cause climate change is enormously greater than exists NOW.

1. No.  You need to understand that the depths of research on this topic are something that themselves have to be researched in order to get any kind of understanding on the topic.  What I know of volcanoes is that they have ways of measuring things like CO2 emissions, ash coverage and so on.  The volumes of emissions in current volcanoes isn't significant.
2. I don't understand that sentence.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Concerning volcanoes and climate change, let's not forget that you started that one, Mike.

BTW everything you say there is incorrect.

No - there are skeptics who will try to play up small areas where there is some uncertainty into something bigger than they are.  They know that temperatures are driven by two things: CO2 and solar radiation.  When they look at the past they can find rationales for climate change in the past based on those factors and feedbacks that they cause.  

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  You need to understand that the depths of research on this topic are something that themselves have to be researched in order to get any kind of understanding on the topic.  What I know of volcanoes is that they have ways of measuring things like CO2 emissions, ash coverage and so on.  The volumes of emissions in current volcanoes isn't significant.
2. I don't understand that sentence.

In the distant past, MEGA-VOLCANOS caused climate change. We haven't had a MEGA-VOLCANO erupt in the last 500 years.  Not even Krakatoa was a MEGA-VOLCANO.

[Infidel Dog]

34 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your response was very light on fact. 
Denmark? How about Iowa? Iowa generates 57% of its total electricity from wind. 
China? Can you show us any evidence that China is a dominant windmill supplier? As far as I know, the rotor/stator assemblies in wind turbines are conventional and don’t rely on rare earth metals. And, AGAIN, an electrical generator is an electrical generator. Unless it’s solar, it uses a rotor and a stator. It can be geothermal, hydro, nuclear, coal, gas, wind… rotor and stator. In all of them. So don’t give us this China crap. You don’t know that the hell you’re talking about.  You’re countering fact with your imagination. 
 

Earth itself doesn’t care about climate change. Earth will be fine. And so will the cockroaches. But humanity relies on food. The food is grown in fields. The fields rely upon sunlight and rain.  Disrupt that balance and people will die. People also live close to water.  I realize that you can barely read, but there’s a Cat 4-5 hurricane being unleashed on Florida as we speak.  So we will spend this money, either by switching over our electric generation and car propulsion, or by rebuilding cities over and over and over, because boneheads like you are just too dumb to understand simple scientific principles which you’ve been told about for fifty years.  

I hope you're not pretending your 2 posts are heavy on fact. Because if you are why don't you try to show us some.

Now on the importance of rare earth to Wind turbines good blather. Now here's some science for you.

Quote

Summary

Wind power needs to be expanded rapidly across the world to stabilize our climate. However, there are increasing concerns about conflicts between the supply of rare-earth elements (REs) (mainly neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium) and the global expansion of wind power. Here, we provide a dynamic, technology-rich, and regional-specific approach to exploring such conflicts among ten world regions through 2050 under four widely recognized climate scenarios. We find that the significant increase in RE demand driven by the ambitious 2050 global wind-power targets cannot be achieved without 11- to 26-fold expansion in the RE production. Material recycling and efficiency, production expansion, and technical innovation are promising for alleviating RE supply shortages in the long term. However, the existing global RE supply structure, along with the intensifying geopolitical and environmental constraints, could inhibit the rapid expansion of wind power, which calls for global cooperation to foster a sustainable and responsible RE supply chain.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220302980

Edited September 28, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[ExFlyer]

59 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There have been NO MEGA-VOLCANO eruptions in the last 20 years. Believe me, if there was, EVERYONE would know.

The last MEGA eruption in Yellowstone wiped out most of the animal life in North America.

That is NOT the ONLY path.

The last part was somewhat facetious. Point with that is if you make the poor countries richer, they will no longer be of worht to the richer countries. You can see this sort of thing happen when major companies shift from one country to another to find a place to make the product cheaper. The more the country gets advanced, the less it becomes viable to manufacturer cheaply.

As for the volcano thing, MEGA - VOLCANO is a non issue. All volcanoes spew ash and carbon into the air so, they do contribute.

Don't be evangelistic towards me, I will just turn you off like I do to a radio.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In the distant past, MEGA-VOLCANOS caused climate change. We haven't had a MEGA-VOLCANO erupt in the last 500 years.  Not even Krakatoa was a MEGA-VOLCANO.

Yes - that is what I thought you were arguing here:

"1. The argument is that volcanos have caused climate change in the PAST, so they COULD be the cause now."

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

 All volcanoes spew ash and carbon into the air so, they do contribute.

That ignores the essential point that the VOLUME of CO2 causes climate change.  Not all volcanoes emit the same levels of CO2 and this is known.  

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes - that is what I thought you were arguing here:

"1. The argument is that volcanos have caused climate change in the PAST, so they COULD be the cause now."

I referenced that argument; I did not promote nor subscribe to it.

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

That ignores the essential point that the VOLUME of CO2 causes climate change.  Not all volcanoes emit the same levels of CO2 and this is known.  

As I have said again and again Michael, I agree there is climate change and we are to blame for much of it.

My issues is that the countries that are causing it the least are the ones that are charging the highest price to their citizens.

[Infidel Dog]

They may find replacements for rare earth elements in wind turbines.

Quote

Wind turbines require very powerful magnets that often use rare earth elements that are hard to mine and refine. Researchers at Ames Laboratory are working on creating magnets from non-traditional and more abundant materials.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/08/scientists-propose-alternatives-to-rare-earth-elements-critical-for-wind-turbines/

Hope they do. But as far as I know and for the present that one is in the line-up with the even more important need for an improvement in battery technology that will allow the turbine to continue producing energy when the wind is not blowing.

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As I have said again and again Michael, I agree there is climate change and we are to blame for much of it.

My issues is that the countries that are causing it the least are the ones that are charging the highest price to their citizens.

The US is one of the largest emitters of GHG. China is also very large.

[Infidel Dog]

China is number one.

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The US is one of the largest emitters of GHG. China is also very large.

 

The US is not charging citizens and China is not either. We do though.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. As I have said again and again Michael, I agree there is climate change and we are to blame for much of it.

2. My issues is that the countries that are causing it the least are the ones that are charging the highest price to their citizens.

1. With you, I think you get it but I am responding to this opinion you posted: "What I have yet to agree with is the cause. Yes, I am sure man is partially to blame but, historically, there has been severe climate changes in the life of the earth "
2. If we have moved on from the point I talked about in 1. then I agree but they did sign on to the Paris Accord so let's see if they follow through.  I don't believe that we should shirk our agreements because we think others are.  That's just not honourable and we can't really take the high road ever if we (Canada) behave that way.

[Rebound]

47 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I hope you're not pretending your 2 posts are heavy on fact. Because if you are why don't you try to show us some.

Now on the importance of rare earth to Wind turbines good blather. Now here's some science for you.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220302980

Nonetheless… rotor, stator. 

[Infidel Dog]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - there are skeptics who will try to play up small areas where there is some uncertainty into something bigger than they are.  They know that temperatures are driven by two things: CO2 and solar radiation.  When they look at the past they can find rationales for climate change in the past based on those factors and feedbacks that they cause.  

First of all, who are these "they" of which you speak?

Science is currently a battlefield on what is causing changes in climate at any moment in geologic history. And the larger disagreements have to do with what's happening currently.

So many theories. Here I'll give you three to look up. 

"Milankovitch orbital cycles."

So much stuff on Oceans but you should at least know about the "Great Ocean Conveyor belt."

I find the possibilities in clouds fascinating but try this one for a search term "Dr Roy Spencer Cloud Studies."

There are tons more. Thinking all climate influences have been definitively determined is a joke.

[Rebound]

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

The US is not charging citizens and China is not either. We do though.

People in Florida are paying for it right now. 

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Nonetheless… rotor, stator. 

Not only are rare earth metals necessary in current alternative energy:

Quote

Electric motors and turbines are an integral part of decarbonization. While these technologies may not directly produce carbon emissions, many of them require specific rare earth elements. Extracting these elements is an energy-intensive and heavily polluting process, complicating the transition to "clean" energy.

https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/rare-earth-elements-a-resource-constraint-of-the-energy-transition/

they may be even more influential in future advancements.

 

 

[robosmith]

42 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

The US is not charging citizens and China is not either. We do though.

"Charging citizens" what?

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. First of all, who are these "they" of which you speak?

2. Science is currently a battlefield on what is causing changes in climate at any moment in geologic history. And the larger disagreements have to do with what's happening currently.

3. So many theories. Here I'll give you three to look up. 

4. "Milankovitch orbital cycles."

So much stuff on Oceans but you should at least know about the "Great Ocean Conveyor belt."

I find the possibilities in clouds fascinating but try this one for a search term "Dr Roy Spencer Cloud Studies."

There are tons more. Thinking all climate influences have been definitively determined is a joke.

1. Skeptics who are outside of Climate Science.  There is only one skeptic I know who publishes climate science.
2. Kind of like Gettysburg is a battlefield.
3. # of theories doesn't have any bearing on what the consensus is
4. I have looked into these things.   My impression is most of these other theories died out.  Let's look at one at a time. Milankovitch Cycles...

Edited September 28, 2022 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

For the Milankovitch Cycles this seems like a good starting point.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. With you, I think you get it but I am responding to this opinion you posted: "What I have yet to agree with is the cause. Yes, I am sure man is partially to blame but, historically, there has been severe climate changes in the life of the earth "
2. If we have moved on from the point I talked about in 1. then I agree but they did sign on to the Paris Accord so let's see if they follow through.  I don't believe that we should shirk our agreements because we think others are.  That's just not honourable and we can't really take the high road ever if we (Canada) behave that way.

Michael, the Paris Accord is just another show business BS thing.

You know and I know there was no way that was going to be achieved and it was an dis not.

Taxing the Canadian public is show business too. We have fallen backwards, that is what pisses me off.

The Paris Accord and the ones previous to that were pie in the sky show business. Not realistic and not achievable and making the taxpayer dig deeper into their pockets for what??

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

People in Florida are paying for it right now. 

Are we talking countries or 1/50th of a country?? 

[ExFlyer]

52 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"Charging citizens" what?

Carbon and climate taxes etc

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 Michael, the Paris Accord is just another show business BS thing.

You know and I know there was no way that was going to be achieved and it was an dis not.

Taxing the Canadian public is show business too. We have fallen backwards, that is what pisses me off.

The Paris Accord and the ones previous to that were pie in the sky show business. Not realistic and not achievable and making the taxpayer dig deeper into their pockets for what??

Ok but you didn't answer my question.  Do you think it's wise to pull out of it ?  Unilaterally ?  Pretty much every nation on earth has signed on... we should isolate ourselves ?