The Great Global Warming Poll

[aquaman]

"the cost of reducing emissions is too much".

Just fixing the Harvey damage is going to cost over $100bn!

Also, the poll doesn't cover other man-made influences, it only asks about CO2 .. Peat writes in (I think) Generative Energy about localised warming being caused by removal of huge tranches of old forest, and gives the example of West coast of the US and the old forests removed.

I think it was about 1870 or 1875 that William Morris said, "where will this culture end in with a counting- house on top of a cinder pile?'". That was very close to the way the climate change seems to be leading us to ashes and money.

 

[Kyle M]

The oil industry pays PR firms to mitigate the significance of global warming.

You mean they pay PR firms to put out information contrary to those attacking them? Just like any company does?

Let's say that global warming is a hoax (use this as a premise) and that you are an oil company in the sights of political entities for legal targeting and expropriation. What would you do?

People telling the truth have to get their message out too, you know...PR isn't evidence of dishonesty.

 

[Travis]

People telling the truth have to get their message out too, you know...PR isn't evidence of dishonesty.

But they don't always tell the truth, and they are often deceptive. They pretend to be "normal people" and don't declare their interests.

And when they disregard every single piece of evidence that contradicts their PR agenda with pathetic excuses.

It's true, some of them play fair. Like Chris Preston PhD, who has been defending genetically-modified food for years: Disqus Profile - Chris__Preston

But there are some people who comment 8 hours per day, people who don't know anything and who appear to be simply repeating the same old propagandistic one-liners for years and posting a cache of pre-made memes in a robot-like fashion: Disqus Profile - disqus_tlEIT18b4g

There is a difference between a single individual doing it because they care (who actually reads the science), and a small army of sociology majors all repeating the same party lines from the same handbook from an office building in Florida. It would be way easier to get to the truth without billion-dollar corporations spending money to obfuscate that truth. Most corporations are run by lawyers who simply don't know much about science, and who simply don't care (only as far as the science is profitable).

Is their PR handbook written by scientists? or is written by psychologists?

Attacking some of the best whistleblowers and scientific critics becomes part of their corporate culture. People like Linus Pauling, Andrew Wakefield, Gilles-Éric Séralini, Árpád Pusztai, Dean Burk, and Boyd Haley are all beaten with the "woo stick". The propagandists on Disqus upvote eachother almost immediately in a concerted manner to bring their comments to the top. There are "rings" of propagandists and this is coordinated. You can tell that they communicate with eachother by how quickly they pounce on new critics and inundate them with abuse and propaganda.

But yeah. There is a fair way to defend corporations. There are many GMO myths that are simply not true, and many unscientific ideas about global warming and vaccines out there. I just think that anyone who defends a corporation needs to do it honestly, but they rarely do. They always deny getting paid for their activities.

They do lie. Some of these people are confirmed liars. I think lying could be a prerequisite for most PR jobs.

This guy defends nuclear power in a fair manner: Disqus Profile - aaronoakley

But as far as global warming is concerned, I think this person is the most knowledgeable and trustworthy: Disqus Profile - CBlargh00

 

[baggywrinkle]

how can global warming/cooling co2 etc can be understood when we don't understand how the weather works.
having said that who here knows?

 

[Travis]

how can global warming/cooling co2 etc can be understood when we don't understand how the weather works.
having said that who here knows?

Yeah. It would be very difficult to predict exactly how much the temperature would change with increasing CO₂. The physicists use their Planck calculations, but I find some physical chemistry laws more intuitive: Beer–Lambert law - Wikipedia

In a glass vial, you can measure the light absorbed with increasing CO₂ concentrations. This is so predictable that it's even used to determine concentration, by simply measuring the amount of light transmitted through the sample.

In every test system, when you raise the CO₂ level more light is absorbed and more heat is trapped. It simply follows from this that increased CO₂ would be expected to increase the Earth's average temperature.

But there are so many added complexities that need to be taken into account. I am under the opinion that increased atmospheric CO₂ must raise the Earth's average temperature, but estimating exactly how much is difficult.

 

[x-ray peat]

Yeah. It would be very difficult to predict exactly how much the temperature would change with increasing CO₂. The physicists use their Planck calculations, but I find some physical chemistry laws more intuitive: Beer–Lambert law - Wikipedia

In a glass vial, you can measure the light absorbed with increasing CO₂ concentrations. This is so predictable that it's even used to determine concentration, by simply measuring the amount of light transmitted through the sample.

In every test system, when you raise the CO₂ level more light is absorbed and more heat is trapped. It simply follows from this that increased CO₂ would be expected to increase the Earth's average temperature.

But there are so many added complexities that need to be taken into account. I am under the opinion that increased atmospheric CO₂ must raise the Earth's average temperature, but estimating exactly how much is difficult.

You have to look into CO2 saturation. As you know CO2 only absorbs IR in specific wavelengths. It has been shown that all of these wavelengths are completely absorbed by the existing amount of CO2. Any additional CO2 will have a much lower effect on warming as it will only slightly broaden the wavelength bands of what is absorbed.

 

[Travis]

It has been shown that all of these wavelengths are completely absorbed by the existing amount of CO2. Any additional CO2 will have a much lower effect on warming as it will only slightly broaden the wavelength bands of what is absorbed.

I have heard that. The height of the peak is at 100% at certain frequencies of light, but it is thought that with increased CO₂ will cause other frequencies to be absorbed more. So if you look at the entire spectrum, you might expect a "peak broadening" effect to occur. This would correspond to more total energy absorbed.

It has been shown that all of these wavelengths are completely absorbed by the existing amount of CO2.

If this were true, you might expect the peak would look like a square wave on a electrical oscillator. But instead we get a landscape reminiscent of the monolithic rock formations at Utah's Capitol Reef National Park!

 

[x-ray peat]

I have heard that. The height of the peak is at 100% at certain frequencies of light, but it is thought that with increased CO₂ will cause other frequencies to be absorbed more. So if you look at the entire spectrum, you might expect a "peak broadening" effect to occur. This would correspond to more total energy absorbed.
If this were true, you might expect the peak would look like a square wave on a electrical oscillator. But instead we get a landscape reminiscent of the monolithic rock formations at Utah's Capitol Reef National Park!

That is exactly what I meant when I wrote "additional CO2 will have a much lower effect on warming as it will only slightly broaden the wavelength bands of what is absorbed." The marginal energy absorbed from the effect of a broadened absorption band is much less than before saturation is achieved and will continuously decrease in a asymptotic way. the climate alarmists like to imagine that any additional CO2 will have a linear effect on temperature. i.e. a doubling of CO2 will double the effect. This is far from true.

 

[Travis]

The marginal energy absorbed from the effect of a broadened absorption band is much less than before saturation is achieved and will continuously decrease in a asymptotic way. the climate alarmists like to imagine that any additional CO2 will have a linear effect on temperature. i.e. a doubling of CO2 will double the effect.

I can see that. Each progressive doubling will have less of an effect until any additional CO₂ becomes negligible.

Most concentration calibration curves are plotted linearly because this holds at a narrow concentration. But with longer path lengths and high concentrations, deviations certainly occur:

 

[lollipop]

I can see that. Each progressive doubling will have less of an effect until any additional CO₂ becomes negligible.

Most concentration calibration curves are plotted linearly because this holds at a narrow concentration. But with longer path lengths and high concentrations, deviations certainly occur:
View attachment 6452

@Travis I must say that your rational, researched, open minded, curious, levelheaded, non emotional, data based posts bring out the best of everyone interacting with them. Furthermore, they bring sanity to highly charged, emotional, polarized topics. Bravo. And I, for one, am grateful because of the learning I am receiving and for their unifying affect.

 

[Kyle M]

The ability for something to absorb as fringe frequencies around it's natural absorbance range is negligible for any real-world effect. Orders of magnitude lower and diminishing faster than it does (steeper to the asymptote) than even in it's normal bands. There is no evidence that CO2 has any control over global temperature, that stupid ice core data showed that 600 years after a rise in temperature CO2 would rise, obviously from a lowering of gas solubility in global surface water, so the evidence can only be seen as causational in the opposite direction if at all.

 

[Optimus]

I think most here, as at other places, continue to to have a narrow approach of focusing only on CO2 as was the desire of people with vested interest.

Let's look at the bigger picture. For example, the fossil fuel industry leads to many more harmful pollutants. It is the production of various other chemicals as a result of combustion (various heavy metals, nitric and sulphurous compounds etc), manufacture (fracking chemicals of oil extraction, tailings ponds of tar sand extraction), spinoff industries (polythene, lube oils etc.) and additives (such as lead compounds in gasoline) that should be the focus of our attention. Ray peat has already talked much about harms of deforestation.

 

[lvysaur]

We (and by we I mean the elites) are driving the extinction of a lot of plants and animals.

We (and by we I mean the elites) are poisoning the earth.

Those pesky elites taking advantage of us po' middle class folk

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Those pesky elites taking advantage of us po' middle class folk

How much deforestation has the average person done?

how many ecosystems have they poisoned or destroyed for financial gain?

How many pollution causing factories have they built?

How much industrial waste have they dumped into the environment?

Most people are just order takers. They do what they're told and were far past calling out the pawns. There's nothing there to call out; they will do what they're told. It's the guy holding the reins that have the mea culpa.

 

[Queequeg]

"the cost of reducing emissions is too much".

Just fixing the Harvey damage is going to cost over $100bn!

Also, the poll doesn't cover other man-made influences, it only asks about CO2 .. Peat writes in (I think) Generative Energy about localised warming being caused by removal of huge tranches of old forest, and gives the example of West coast of the US and the old forests removed.

I think your first point is covered in the second option "the cure is worse than the disease."

Its true though that I was only focusing on CO2 as that is what everyone is screaming about. Desertification is definitely an important issue as well.

 

[Queequeg]

I think most here, as at other places, continue to to have a narrow approach of focusing only on CO2 as was the desire of people with vested interest.

Let's look at the bigger picture. For example, the fossil fuel industry leads to many more harmful pollutants. It is the production of various other chemicals as a result of combustion (various heavy metals, nitric and sulphurous compounds etc), manufacture (fracking chemicals of oil extraction, tailings ponds of tar sand extraction), spinoff industries (polythene, lube oils etc.) and additives (such as lead compounds in gasoline) that should be the focus of our attention. Ray peat has already talked much about harms of deforestation.

I completely agree that those issues are more importnat and IMO global warming is a fraud. However I did want to get a gauge on what a group of high IQ people think about the subject. Obviously the results here are very different than the normal polls on the subject.

 

[Ella]

Tough choice between a cooling and no idea what's going to happen, I think they are both true. That is to say that I believe we are on the cusp of a cooling trend from natural factors (whatever natural means, I mean sun cycles) and also that the vast overwhelming majority of climate, and most other, scientists have no idea what's going on or what will happen in the future.

Strongly agree. This winter has been the coldest since my childhool. Our last horrific drought, winter was mild; similar to spring. The global population's most urgent problem is the scarity of clean freshwater. The majority of peeple don't even think twice to their wasteful use of this precious finite resource. Don't know why we are worrying about something that is beyond our control and not having discussions about the reclaimation and recycling of grey water, which we all individually have the ability to influence. We have no control in preventing floods as has happened in Texas but we can plan and design how best to harvest rain when it falls so heavlly.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I wish global warming was real.

It would be such a blessing for mankind as a whole.

High CO2 (leading to massive plant growth and human health), constantly warm, humid, lots of rain and thus freshwater, land previously covered in ice is now usable.

 

[Queequeg]

I wish global warming was real.

It would be such a blessing for mankind as a whole.

High CO2 (leading to massive plant growth and human health), constantly warm, humid, lots of rain and thus freshwater, land previously covered in ice is now usable.

I know, I do as well. Unfortunately I think the more credible scientists think we are headed towards a period of cooling.

Even though the increase in CO2 will probably do very little for temperatures it will as you say lead to massive plant growth. Some scientists actually say the Industrial Revolution has actually saved life on Earth as CO2 levels were getting too low to sustain photosynthesis.

 

[aquaman]

land previously covered in ice is now usable.

Don't forget many major cities in the US under water!