Menu
Sister Sites

  • Central Banks Criticized for Risky Gamble on Climate Risks

    From bnnbloomberg.ca

    Climate activists are warning that central banks are taking a “risky gamble” with their strategies for addressing the financial risks from global warming. The scenarios being used to guide the transition to a carbon-neutral economy are biased toward temperatures that are too high and fossil-fuel phase-outs that are too slow, according to a study by Oil Change International and Reclaim Finance. Such downplaying of the speed and depth of the necessary energy shift risks perpetuating the status quo for use of fossil fuels, the lobby groups said Monday. The warning is based on scenarios by the Network for Greening ... (full story)

  •  Guest
  • | IP XXX.XX.250.130
Global worming???Ha ha ha.What about ice age.
Global warming, part of the global woking movement...
funny how in ~1990 we had ~10 years to save the planet and in 2018 we had only ~12 years to do it before things turn out of control...... (arguably these are media headline, not much to do with the science that says: well world seems to get slightly warmer, but to be franc, we're not sure how and why; we have an hypothesis that works well in silico but doesn't match much of anything in vivo, hence we're working hard to tweak measurement so they can fit the hypothesis, but even with decades of efforts, still can't reconciliate both world... obviously measurements are wrong somewhere and we need more adjustments... anyways we have the moral high ground, we can do whatever we want and if you disagree we'll cancel you.)

https://youtu.be/6yWlh41VBCM
  • Post #3
  • Quote
  • Edited at 9:23am Feb 15, 2021 9:07am | Edited at 9:23am
I love Carlin. Thats a classic clip..

Yep thats the laugh.. but the real life GW denial stuff I dont buy.
The science is overwhelming and irrefutable. And the deniers are all the same folk that revel in conspiracy theories and tell me the world is flat, CV19 comes from 5g radiation, and vaccines are BAD and a certain election was stolen.
Scientific denial is not a 21 century internet disease.. its just human psychology.. belief in witchdoctors.. Voodoo.. Illuminati.. illusionists and delusionalists have been part of our society.
We live in a scientific era. Our great progress in the last 300 years stems from the Enlightenment and the integration of scientific method in the development of our societies and economies.
The internet / FB /Youtube/ etc didn't create this it just gave a voice to a lot of folk that in order to express their individuality adopt contrarian positions on even the most done 'n dusted of issues.
Quoting ForeverNewb
Global warming, part of the global woking movement... funny how in ~1990 we had ~10 years to save the planet and in 2018 we had only ~12 years to do it before things turn out of control...... (arguably these are media headline, not much to do with the science that says: well world seems to get slightly warmer, but to be franc, we're not sure how and why; we have an hypothesis that works well in silico but...
Get your facts straight, it wasn't 1990 only 10 years and in 2018 only 12 years, it has always been based on the amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. The science hasn't ever changed and the rate of change in the damage done to our atmosphere was actually underestimated in the past meaning it was worse than they thought. In the early 80s when I was in high school our science teacher was explaining what was happening and how the planet would be affected and he was spot on, it is something that I have been watching/ following since. FYI the snowstorms in Texas were all predicted because as the arctic ice caps melt the warmer air reflecting off the dark open water pushes the jetstream further south pulling that cold polar vortex air down causing these unusual weather patterns. Now as these things become more and more obvious to business and governments the shift to move money from fossil fuels industries and into cleaner more sustainable energy will be huge. The horse watering troughs in front of the general stores are all gone these days and soon the gas stations will follow.
For those with some memory of the Cold war.. I mourn the passing of George Shultz.
The clappy-happy internet gamer celebrity president world most of you guys you live in today he made possible as a major contributor to ENDING the Cold War. A brilliant far seeing guy who anticipated the climate crisis by 50 years. RIP
Quoting harcos
{quote} Get your facts straight, it wasn't 1990 only 10 years and in 2018 only 12 years, it has always been based on the amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. The science hasn't ever changed and the rate of change in the damage done to our atmosphere was actually underestimated in the past meaning it was worse than they thought. In the early 80s when I was in high school our science teacher was explaining what was happening and how the planet would be affected and he was spot on, it is something that I have been watching/ following since. FYI...
well, I said media headline, so here a couple of examples:
The famous AP news from 1989 reporting Noel Brown "said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control." (OK I was wrong I thought it was 1990, my bad!)
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372c...964ea547880cd0
and another for the 12 years in 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mark-un-report
and a last one for fun, BBC in july 2019, we have 18 months (hence should be done by... Feb 2021, so it's done, we're phuked already, why bother?)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

"FYI the snowstorms in Texas were all predicted"
show me the prediction please
[quote=ForeverNewb;13410381]{quote} well, I said media headline, so here a couple of examples: The famous AP news from 1989 reporting Noel Brown "said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control." (OK I was wrong I thought it was 1990, my bad!) https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372c...964ea547880cd0 and another for the 12 years in 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mark-un-report and a last one for fun,...[/quote

Dr. Noel Brown is a Political scientist, not an environmental scientist and I stand by there is no exact date as to when we are reaching certain point. Thank you for the guardian article as it is correct, we are now past the point of no return. Even if we go to net zero today we are screwed unless we remove the CO2 from the atmosphere with carbon capture technologies and a whole pile of tree planting and things like that. The deforestation in the rainforests is such a massive yet understated contributor.
As far as the snowstorms in Texas the effects of melting polar caps on the polar jet stream is old news, like I said my high school science teacher was explaining it in the early 80s but here is a useful link just for fun
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/...pacts-everyone
You ask why bother? Because it is our responsibility.
Quoting harcos
Quoting ForeverNewb
{quote} well, I said media headline, so here a couple of examples: The famous AP news from 1989 reporting Noel Brown "said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control." (OK I was wrong I thought it was 1990, my bad!)https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372c...ea547880cd0and another for the 12 years in 2018https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
...
what do you mean an exact date? you want the month and day?? I guess you being cheeky and I'm falling for it
Snowstorm and extreme low temperature (way below freezing point) in Texas is no news, for the few dates I remember it happened in 1899, 1918, 1951, 1962 and more I don't recall. The influence of the jet stream is also no news as you said, and it has varied with multiyear cycles, bringing periods of unusual cold in some part of the world as well as unusual warmth, due to the change of shape of air masses).

Thanks for the link but this is not the prediction I expected (I was expecting specific, number based, science-backed, predictions about snowstorm in Texas as you wrote: "the snowstorms in Texas were all predicted", not something along the lines: "climate change will result sometimes in warmer weather and some other times colder weather" cf "Less ice means less reflected heat, meaning more intense heatwaves worldwide. But it also means more extreme winters" which data show none of this happens... but well, I quit the WWF with their anti-chlorine campaign and the realisation they don't really care about the environment)
The worst thing Humanity can do is remove CO2 from the atmosphere, that will result in a massive extinction, no doubt about it.

Ice caps will melt at some point, I have also no doubt about it. We are currently in an ice age, no ice age has last forever (duh!) so no reason to believe this one will.



For fun, have you ever calculated what the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would be if Thanos were to snap his fingers and burn all know reserve of fossil fuel at once (oil, gaz and coal)? that would give you a good idea of the actual magnitude of doom that we can expect if one assume the current CACG theory is correct. Hansen did it a few years ago (Phil Trans A 2013)... had to stretch it a lot to get anything meaningful, both on the amount of reserve and the ECS.

Speaking about ECS, you can I hope explain me why the range has not change in 30 years despite so much research funded with tax payer money, while it is the crux of the matter and the key disagreement going on in the scientific community (as most of everything else, if not all, hinges on this value)
Quoting ForeverNewb
{quote}{quote} what do you mean an exact date? you want the month and day?? I guess you being cheeky and I'm falling for it Snowstorm and extreme low temperature (way below freezing point) in Texas is no news, for the few dates I remember it happened in 1899, 1918, 1951, 1962 and more I don't recall. The influence of the jet stream is also no news as you said, and it has varied with multiyear cycles, bringing periods of unusual cold in some part of the world as well as unusual warmth, due to the change of shape of air masses).
 Thanks...
You are utterly and terribly wrong, you choose to cherry pick the facts that support how you want to think. Firstly use some common sense man, when I say removing CO2 from the atmosphere does not mean all of it just the excess we have caused. If you care to do thorough research you can learn all about climate change and how since the industrial revolution began humans have been accelerating this artificial cycle. Most people don't want to know the facts though as it pushes them out of their comfort zone. They trust the scientists and engineers that bring them good things in life like cell phones and TV's but when a scientist says hey you have to stop doing "THIS" because it causes "THAT" they all of a sudden know better than people who have studied and trained in the actual science. You keep referring to one or two instances where someone said this was going to happen and it never so everyone must be wrong. Fact is the consensus among the trained professionals in their fields say climate change is real and it is. If you choose to ignore it and run off with some wacko and drink the kool-aid that's your choice but luckily the deniers of the climate science are small minority so at least in the democratic countries action will be taken.
Quoting harcos
{quote} ...people who have studied and trained in the actual science...
I did, about 100 publications in peer reviewed journals, majority of it top of the line and about 40% with Nobel prize (or equivalent for field not covered by the Nobel prize, such as engineering) winners as co-authors. Arguably I was not directly in climatology but >20years in energy efficient and energy renewable research, hence had quite a few opportunities to talk about climate with climatologists. That is not the type of argument I like to use, doesn't lead anywhere, but if you start throwing "scientists and engineers" at my face and try to appeal to some authority, I have to. The only thing you have achieved so far is to demonstrate that you trust something based on a pseudo-media-pushed-consensus and actually have no idea what you are talking about and obviously have no idea what is the actual consensus "among the trained professionals". You would certainly have believed in phlogiston, miasma and ether among others.
I asked you 2 very specific questions that are at the heart of the CACG theory, obviously you don't want to answer them... up to you, maybe you don't want, maybe you can't, maybe you don't know what I'm talking about or even perhaps you actually know the answer hence the throw of fairy dust in an attempt to muddy the waters. Up to you, but as long as you don't want to discuss facts, as I'm not in the business of convincing people and I don't really have time to discuss fictions and feelings, have a nice day!
Quoting ForeverNewb
{quote} I did, about 100 publications in peer reviewed journals, majority of it top of the line and about 40% with Nobel prize (or equivalent for field not covered by the Nobel prize, such as engineering) winners as co-authors. Arguably I was not directly in climatology but >20years in energy efficient and energy renewable research, hence had quite a few opportunities to talk about climate with climatologists. That is not the type of argument I like to use, doesn't lead anywhere, but if you start throwing "scientists and engineers"...
Yeah your experts must know more than mine. FYI a few simple google searches prove my point and they also disprove yours. Here is your answer to Thanos snapping his fingers (yes I know the Marvl movies). https://phys.org/news/2016-05-fossil...imate%20Change.
As for the pseudo media crap you are spewing you need to understand the difference between fake news and biased news. I believe what I see. I have travelled the arctic extensively. I see the loss of sea ice. I took chemistry, I can solve a chemical equation. I also read a lot of publications on the topics, enough to know you are wrong. Call it fairy dust because you don't want to believe it but it is true. You attack my character suggesting I would believe in some old alchemy BS because you cannot find any real evidence that climate change isn't happening.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Nasa.png Size: 310 KB
According to NASA 97% of actively published climate scientists agree climate change is real and man made and catastrophic. Anything from NASA must be fairy dust,I wasn't on the moon to see them land but I am pretty sure they did, foolish me.
Hey it is possible although highly improbable that you and your 3% are right but as a trader I play probabilities and percentages so I will stick to my original statements as I have not been proven wrong.
Quoting harcos
{quote} and they also disprove yours...
I haven't made any point yet (besides that you don't want to answer my 2 questions) so can't be disproved (though I have been amply proved right on the point I made that you don't answer my questions). What is the point you think I made? perhaps we simply have some initial simple misunderstanding that could be easily clarified.

"According to NASA 97% of actively published climate scientists agree climate change is real and man made and catastrophic."
That irks me, can't let it pass
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...8/2/024024/pdf
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "
in the paper, "endorsing" includes "implicit endorsement" (that basically is a study not directly on climate change but they use it as a background and/or to show the interest of their own study, such as mitigation studies) though they make about 75% of the papers considered as endorsing AGW (you can see by yourself with the supplementary data... takes some time to go through the list of papers, but worth doing if you want real answers)
So it is not "97% of actively published climate scientist endorse..." it is more like "8% of the abstracts of a subset of the climatology literature published between 1991 and 2011 endorsed AGW (which actually doesn't mean that the main text of the paper even does!!)." Not exactly the same thing. And at least NASA mention climate scientists... how many times can you see in media the thing becoming "97% of all scientists"
Other papers about consensus work out about the same way and more or less same statistical tricks. Look at them by yourself.
Another game for you: in the list of papers given in the supplementary information, how many are actually authored by skeptics/lukewarmers yet categorized in the "endorse" section?

About the temperature anomaly, I can't see you having the basis for a proper discussion, it becomes quite technical and quite long as the devil is in the details.

About your google link (I take it you didn't do the calculations so have no idea of the scales involved) you can certainly explain me why it would "scorch the earth" this time while much higher level of CO2 in the past haven't? fundamental physics of radiations changed over time?
The calculations are estimates at best due to the unknowns of absolute quantities and it doesn't couple them with the massive deforestation that has cone on in the last few centuries. Its not just one thing and no I did not measure up all the hydrocarbons and calculate how many tons of CO2 we have left to pump into the air because it is a moot point, we already have too much in our atmosphere as it is.

Yes the CO2 has been higher in the past...500 million years ago, roughly 320 million years before mammals. O2 then was also twice what it is now then so silly comparison, grasping at straws there newb.

As for weblink disproving weblink it is true that you can always find one that disagrees with the other but what about just a simple measurement. Would you agree an inch is an inch? We have tracked weather from roughly the 1650s, obviously recent measurements are better than past measurements. We also analyze core samples from Glaciers that have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. From this data is can be seen that never in history has the climate changed so much in such a short span of time. Pretty much decades compared to millennia. Anyone who cannot put that 2+2 together lacks basic common sense.

You are a trader you obviously can read a chart. Give me another plausible reason that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing has nothing to do with the CO2 emissions. What is your explanation for it? Never mind the opinions of anyone else scientists or schoolchildren, can you compare both lines and honestly say that it is just some weird coincidence that these lines began to increase sharply about the time the industrial revolution began?


Attached Image
Quoting harcos
Blabla...
You realise your new pseudo-arguments violate Henry's law? What next? 2+2 =5?
Quoting harcos
Blabla...
Slow trading day, so finally had some time to put together some data/info for you.
You seem to like NASA, model and visual correlation? hence here are data/info coming from the NASA website.
First I downloaded a data set from the NASA website, lets call it XYZ data so you don't get a bias from what it is, plotted it and scaled it to match the CO2 curve:

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: CO2_XYZ_Tanom_v1880.png Size: 183 KB
a) is the CO2 curve scaled to the Temperature anomaly; b) is the XYZ data scaled to the Temperature anomaly; c) is CO2 and XYZ scaled to compare.
Not a massive difference. I would argue that XYZ reflect better the stepwise increase in Tanom and the Co2 curve being a splice between ice core data and instrumental data (in the 50's, hence the kink), XYZ is more skilled but might be some bias on my side. So lets say they are not distinguishable.

So lets go back a bit further in time, to have the full XYZ dataset provided by NASA:
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: CO2_XYZ_1600.png Size: 90 KB

Now it gets interesting as we have a divergence. How does it compare with Temp reconstructions? more difficult because there is bunch of reconstructions but for simplicity let's use the spaghetti graph found on NASA's website:

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2 (1).jpg Size: 104 KB

Notice anything? let me help you (very rough, difficulties with scaling in part because the CO2 curve used in that graph doesn't match the "official data"):
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2 (1) copy.jpg Size: 105 KB

What's your thoughts?
  •  Guest
  • | IP XXX.XX.115.215
Join FF
  • Story Stats
  • Posted: Feb 15, 2021 3:12am
  • Submitted by:
     Newsstand
    Category: Fundamental Analysis
    Comments: 15  /  Views: 1,802