Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study

Human cost of climate crisis will hit harder and sooner than previously believed, research reveals

One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study | Environment | The Guardian

Originally Posted by cyrille

Did you begin this two year stint holding the same opinion and looking to 'work undercover'?

If so, when does the expose you were researching come out?

Like most people in renewables I was in it for the money. Only a daft muppet who knows little about the industry would think otherwise. Even the most brain washed evangelicals, cashing their fat pay cheques, know deep inside its a con.

Originally Posted by cyrille

One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study

Human cost of climate crisis will hit harder and sooner than previously believed, research reveals

One billion people will live in insufferable heat within 50 years – study | Environment | The Guardian

Just for fun I read the paper. Did you?

MethodsWe characterized the human climate niche using global gridded datasets for human population as well as a range of social and environmental variables. We used the current population data as well as reconstructed population data available from the History Database of the Global Environment (HYDE 3.1) (49). For early periods, these population data are hindcast from multiple sources. For mid-Holocene, we therefore complement the HYDE data with a reconstruction described in the SI Appendix and based on direct estimates from archaeology (50). Details on the sources and preprocessing of data on crop production, livestock distribution, gross domestic product, and past and present MAT and mean annual precipitation (MAP) are also presented in the SI Appendix. We plotted heat maps illustrating the past and current human climate niche by calculating the mean population density and other variables within each MAT and MAP combination bin and smoothing the result, excluding bins with sparse data points. We also present running means of relevant variables separately against MAT and MAP in the SI Appendix. Uncertainties were characterized as the fifth and 95th percentiles, using different population and climate datasets (SI Appendix).


We modeled the realized human temperature niche based on double-Gaussian fitting of the running mean of the current population distribution against MAT (Fig. 2A, blue dashed curve). We then projected the modeled niche to the past (6 Ky BP) and future (2070) climate conditions (under different Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change RCPs) to illustrate the potential geographic shift of human temperature niche under near-future global warming. To test for the robustness against adding precipitation as an additional dimension of human climate niche, we also projected the smoothed human distribution in terms of MAT and MAP to the past and future climates for comparison.


To quantify the projected shift of the human temperature niche, we calculated proportions of summed niche gain or loss. By multiplying the projected world’s total population (under different IPCC SSPs) by the proportion of displaced niche, we estimated the numbers that would potentially be displaced if the probability distribution over temperatures were to remain unchanged by 2070.


A detailed description of our materials and methods may be found in the SI Appendix, where the reader may also find a broad set of additional results and sensitivity analyses, as well as a Dryad link to the data used and scripts for all computations.

So its a model.

Now, please show me just one computer model that has been proven to be 100% accurate. Especially one that comes from the "Uni of faked Climate SCam of East Anglia" like the modeller in this paper comes from.

He spent 2 years touting free solar installations until that market disappeared with the reduction of Govt unit subsidies.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I knew a lot of this already as I spent 2 years working in renewables. However what did amuse me was how deeply embedded the KOCH brothers are in this scam. They make a fortune out of solar and the disgusting biofuel scam.

Two years in renewables and you don't know the Koch's made their money in petrochemicals, not solar and bio-fuel, or that David K died last year...

Fcuked if I would invest with some nutter who dismisses anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Two years in renewables and you don't know the Koch's made their money in petrochemicals, not solar and bio-fuel, or that David K died last year...

Fcuked if I would invest with some nutter who dismisses anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

OK then here we go. Hold onto your hat (aka you arse)

SunGuard(R) Solar : heat resistant glass treatment, UV protection glass - Koch company

https://www.kochcarbon.com/# Photovoltaic cells are not made "of sand" like you dimwits think. They are made from Silica, which is processed by petroleum coke, all supplied in massive quanitites by Koch Industries . Each solar farm and lovely twirly windmill used tonnes of cement, also supplied by ...wait for it... koch industries.
Home | Koch-Glitsch build the facilities that makes the polysilicon used in pv cells
Molex | Solar Industry All the parts of Solar are connected with specialist connectors from Koch firm MOlex

Every single step of Solar, in the US at least, has Koch at the heart of it. YOu daft know nothing koch cock sucker.

As for your other stupid girly "ohh i win" comment... see the below.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

"you suck Koch brother cock"

Then your standard refrain of "ohh doesn't fit your narrative". Problem you have is that your narrative comes from the main stream media, and that come straight from big business like the Koch brothers. What you really mean is "I hate anything that challenges the main stream narrative that i love and trust".

sap

Originally Posted by pseudolus

OK then here we go. Hold onto your hat (aka you arse)

SunGuard(R) Solar : heat resistant glass treatment, UV protection glass - Koch company

https://www.kochcarbon.com/# Photovoltaic cells are not made "of sand" like you dimwits think. They are made from Silica, which is processed by petroleum coke, all supplied in massive quanitites by Koch Industries . Each solar farm and lovely twirly windmill used tonnes of cement, also supplied by ...wait for it... koch industries.
Home | Koch-Glitsch build the facilities that makes the polysilicon used in pv cells
Molex | Solar Industry All the parts of Solar are connected with specialist connectors from Koch firm MOlex

Every single step of Solar, in the US at least, has Koch at the heart of it. YOu daft know nothing koch cock sucker.

As for your other stupid girly "ohh i win" comment... see the below.





Then your standard refrain of "ohh doesn't fit your narrative". Problem you have is that your narrative comes from the main stream media, and that come straight from big business like the Koch brothers. What you really mean is "I hate anything that challenges the main stream narrative that i love and trust".

sap

Yeah nah.

Your standard retort of trying to flood, non sequiturs, ad hom and disconnected pre-prepared ranting just isn't convincing.

Still not buying!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Yeah nah.

Your standard retort of trying to flood, non sequiturs, ad hom and disconnected pre-prepared ranting just isn't convincing.

Still not buying!

OK then here we go.

SunGuard(R) Solar : heat resistant glass treatment, UV protection glass - Koch company

https://www.kochcarbon.com/# Photovoltaic cells are not made "of sand" like you think. They are made from Silica, which is processed by petroleum coke, all supplied in massive quanitites by Koch Industries . Each solar farm and lovely twirly windmill used tonnes of cement, also supplied by ...wait for it... koch industries.
Home | Koch-Glitsch build the facilities that makes the polysilicon used in pv cells
Molex | Solar Industry All the parts of Solar are connected with specialist connectors from Koch firm MOlex

make it bigger for you. You seem to be rather dim if you can not follow a simple thread of the supply chain going into this branch of renewables. Smeg must be right about you after all

Oh yes sure, repeating your dribble in a different font is definitely more convincing!

Yes I see it now... heat resistant UV glass is definitely the same thing as "solar and bio-fuel" ...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Just watch Michael Moores new film

This is from a review of the documentary posted elsewhere:

Its focus is not just the devastating effects of climate change — it also offers a critical view of the ways in which, per a press release, “the environmental movement has lost the battle through well-meaning but disastrous choices, including the belief that solar panels and windmills would save us, and by giving in to the corporate interests of Wall Street.”

Hmm...that seems rather different from your summary of this documentary's content, sid...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I knew a lot of this already as I spent 2 years working in renewables. Wake up call for you. Climate Scam was created by Big Oil to take down their biggest competitor. Coal.

Some more opinions on the content of this documentary are below...one consistent theme with climate change deniers seems to be that if someone prompting alternative energy creation was wrong about something a decade ago then they are still wrong about it now. This seems unfair, since any reasonable person would concede that we are still coming to terms with the solutions to the problems. Problems which have been brewing for centuries, if not millennia.

It's also crystal clear that Moore's film, unlike pseudolous, does not deny that climate change is a clear and present danger.

Associate Prof Mark Diesendorf, an energy systems and sustainability expert at the University of New South Wales, tells Guardian Australia the film’s commentary on renewable energy is “out-of-date, superficial, simplistic, misleading and very biased”.


It criticises renewable energy – particularly solar and wind – in part because you need varying amounts of materials, energy and metals to make them.


For anyone who has thought for more than a minute about what it takes to build that solar panel or those wind turbines, it should be no revelation that some materials and energy are needed. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.


But the film leaves the viewer thinking there is no net gain from renewable technologies and does not, for example, look at any cradle-to-grave analysis of the technologies it criticises.


“The myth that life-cycle energy invested [and carbon emissions] in building renewable energy technologies is comparable with the lifetime energy generation is false,” says Diesendorf.
Solar panels generate the energy required to build themselves in one to two years of operation, depending on the type of panel and location and their lifetime is about 20 years; large wind turbines in three to 12 months, depending on size of turbines and location, and their lifetime is 25 to 30 years.”


In the film Gibbs says: “I learned that solar panels don’t last forever either.” You would think most people would know that.


Early in the film, Gibbs walks with an environment group protesting a plan to put up 21 wind turbines at Lowell Mountain in Vermont, a row that played out in 2011 (another hint at the age of the film).


An unnamed campaigner tells Gibbs the power grid needs to run idle when the wind drops and that this causes a “bigger footprint” than just running the grid off fossil fuels.


Gibbs takes the speaker’s word but Diesendorf says this is an old myth disproved by real world examples of power grids running with high penetrations of renewable energy – with and without storage such as batteries and hydro power.

The pace of change and development in the renewable energy industry is rapid so a film that wants to inform viewers should be as up-to-date as possible.


But the film is riddled with footage, segments and issues that are a decade or so old.


Gibbs attends the launch of the Chevy Volt, a car launched 10 years ago. He criticises it because it’s recharged from a power grid in Michigan dominated by coal.


Taking a very old example of an electric car operating in one place should not be the basis for forming a judgment about the role of electric cars in 2020, yet the film does.


Gibbs tours a “football field-sized” solar installation called the Cedar Street solar array in Lansing, Michigan. An energy boss says to camera that the panels have an efficiency of a “little less than 8%” and that the array could power only about 10 city homes a year.


What the film doesn’t say is that the array was installed as a pilot project in 2008.
One energy writer to have looked closely at many of the claims in the film is Australian Ketan Joshi who says looking at a solar array from 12 years ago is “an absolute eternity in solar development years”.


Diesendorf says panels with an 8% efficiency “were on the market several decades ago” and now most commercial panels have an efficiency above 20%.


What’s happened to the cost of solar panels since 2008? Analysts Wood Mackenzie say they fell about 90% between 2010 and 2019.

Biomass
The film spends time looking at biomass energy or, more specifically, one subset of biomass technology that is essentially burning trees and woodchips.


Gibbs has been a long-time biomass critic (an old article of his includes a photograph taken while filming footage that appears in the film suggesting that a scene showing clear-felled trees is at least 10 years old).


Burning trees for energy is very problematic but there are reasons why under some circumstances it is not as bad as burning fossil fuels from a greenhouse gas perspective.


One reason is part of climate change 101. Burning fossil fuels liberates carbon atoms that were removed from the Earth’s active carbon cycle millions of years ago. Burning trees moves CO2 back into the biosphere that was sequestered only in recent decades.


To an uninformed viewer, the film might look to be getting some purchase when it shows high-profile environmentalists – namely the author and activist Bill McKibben – supporting burning wood.


McKibben founded his 350.org climate group at Middlebury College, and the film has footage of him at an opening of a biomass gasification plant there, saying technology like that should be everywhere.


That footage was from 2009 and as McKibben has pointed out since the film was released, he very publicly denounced the idea of burning wood for energy in 2016. The film did not make this clear.


McKibben says he heard about the plans for the documentary last year: “I wrote the producer and director to set the record straight, and never heard back from them. That seems like bad journalism, and bad faith.”


Gibbs says he did not get McKibben’s communication and even if he had he would not have changed the film.


That aside, Diesendorf says the film’s treatment of bioenergy is simplistic because while some methods, such as ethanol from corn, are environmentally damaging, ethanol from waste starch is not.


He says the film creates a false impression that bioenergy as expected to have a large contribution to energy needs in the future. “The truth is that some see it playing a minor role while almost all the others reject it entirely. Hardly anyone sees it as playing an important role.”

So basically, Moore looks at alternative energy generation of more than a decade ago and tells us it's out of date.

It sounds like the devil in this case is not in the details.

The point of the film seems to be that renewables are not going save mankind from consuming this planet to death.

The sun has entered a ‘lockdown’ period, which could cause freezing weather, famine

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The sun has entered a ‘lockdown’ period, which could cause freezing weather, famine

Sorry to disappoint you and your feeble minded attempt at convincing us that Murdoch rags are interested in climate science, but....


No.

There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age'

There Is No Impending 'Mini Ice Age' – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You going to ban him for disagreeing Barry

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The sun has entered a ‘lockdown’ period, which could cause freezing weather, famine

In the meantime………..

Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Gavin Schmidt - With today's update to GISTEMP, 2020 is now virtually certain to be a top 3 year (in timeseries back to 1880), the 6th year in a row more than 1ºC above the late 19th C, and a good chance of breaking the record (~70%).: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/s...04896560250883 - Data.GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)

Originally Posted by RPETER65

could

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The sun has entered a ‘lockdown’ period, which could cause freezing weather, famine

Meanwhile……..

Zeke Hausfather - These record May temperature further increases the odds that 2020 will be the warmest year on record: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1268934667027140610

The planet has cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed for millennia and it will cool, warm, cool, warm, cool, warm for millennia to come.

Holy shit... You're really hitting all the Right Wing Troll tropes today aren't you!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Holy shit... You're really hitting all the Right Wing Troll tropes today aren't you!

Im pissed, on the lao khao with no sleep yet, enjoying myself immensely darting around here, but will have no idea about it after i go to sleep and wake up

Fair enough, I admire the candor.

Fucking hell.

Climate crisis: Temperature of 38C thought to be highest ever recorded in Arctic circle

'The kind of weather we expect by 2100, 80 years early,' says meteorologist

A temperature of 38C (100.4F) has been recorded in a Siberian town in what is thought to be a new record high for the Arctic circle.
A weather station in Verkhoyansk logged the temperature on Saturday. If verified, it will overtake an Arctic record set more than a century at Fort Yukon, Alaska, where a temperature of 37.7C (100F) was documented in 1915.

The previous record for the Russian weather station was 37.3C (99.1F), set in July 1988.

The likely new record high comes amid deepening horror at the impact of the unfolding climate crisis, which has already seen a heatwave hit the Arctic unusually early in the year and “zombie fires”, which have lasted the winter, rekindling and causing enormous forest and peat blazes.

Climate crisis: Temperature of 38C recorded in Arctic thought to be the highest in history | The Independent

It doesn't say which of the UVs it is unfortunately. The ones that kill Covid are not good for you.

The highest ever UV levels could be reached in the UK later, on what is set to be the hottest day of the year so far for the second day in a row.

The Met Office said temperatures in west London could reach 33C (91.4F), while parts of Wales could see the mercury rise to 34C (93.2F).

However, the good weather is due to change on Thursday afternoon with thunderstorms forming across the west of the UK.

People were urged to avoid being outside at around midday after forecasters predicted UV radiation could reach a "rare" level eight, or ”very high”.

UK weather forecast: Highest ever UV levels to be seen today before thunderstorms bring heatwave to an end | London Evening Standard

Originally Posted by deeks

The planet has cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed for millennia........

But it’s human activity that is the cause now. We’ve been over this time and time again.: Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet