Topic: It's hard to know who to believe. (Read 765 times)

Ahh...What a thread this was. Me and Carlton started with discussions on environmental costs of Solar power plants vs Fossil-fired power plants, the economic implications of Kyoto protocol and climate accords, the possibility of powerful petroleum lobbies being the driving force to push through such legislation.
It was all going fine. How the hell did we get hung up on 0.01%...LOL..Ohh yeah, it was Banks' fault.. (Told ya, Banks are the worst)

All in all, this was indeed a good discussion on climate change although the original question is about "Who to trust?" That important philosophical debate is getting sidelined due to petty arguments over climate change.

I love Jet Cash's theories though. When it comes to climate change, he is the in-house conspiracy theorist's theorist. It was amusing to see the "Cows farting Methane into atmosphere" argument coming up..Haha, gotta love all you crazy people here.

tre's have an important part for lung health.. but so does for instance filling old quarries with water and turning them into algea /seaweed ponds/farms

as oppose to drylands and concrete cities dont help water to evaporate.

and sorry jetcash but more water in the air is better.. it will cool the land and reflect the sun off the land
(more rainbows the better)
not sure why you think that less carbon=trees sucking up more water from soil and releasing it from pores as being a problem.

any way.
each region of the planet should adopt different tactics
cities should have carbon absorbers(lung health) and mist makers(temperature control).

use old rock/mineral quarry's as premade potential lakes and water life based farming
woodland should not just be cut and move on. but cut and replanted.

vegetable farms can become efficient greenhouses using solar and finely tuned red blue LED lights. maximising yields for less costs and because its in sealed greenhouses no pesticides or herbicide risks.

water ways to reintroduce muscles and oysters and clams to clean water and also use water surface skimmer machines/nets to get some of the plastics out the water without hooking fish up.

stop building houses/buildings at costal edges /floodlands

use snow making machines/misters near the poles
..
the whole 'just plant tree's' is a weak effort

..
as for the extent of things like 'water level rising'..
its happened many times before

heck people think the flood in new orleans is climate change.. no the reason thousands of homes got flooded is because they buiid cheap houses on swamp land for the poor people like the ethnic community.

if you live in an area where an old house is built on stilts.. expect to experience some flooding in your life time no matter what the climate change reasons are

you've not once provided even a shred of evidence for this claim, despite how often you repeat it



that all sounds like total nonsense, Jetcash



I'm slightly skeptical about both of these claims, and I'm not a climate change alarmist by any stretch



provide evidence for these sensational claims. I expect you cannot link to anything credible (which isn't an endorsement of "Big Pharma" or "Big Agriculture")

Energy cannot be destroyed, you can only change its form.

Water vapour, ie. clouds etc. is the greatest cause of global warming by a long way. Reducing carbon starves the tress and vegetation of its life breath. As a result of this, it has to open its pores as it gasps for breath, this releases water vapour into the atmosphere, and it has to be replaced from the soil. We need to increase CO2 to increase trees and vegetation, and to preserve the water in the ground.

We are entering a new solar minimum, and sea ice is increasing - that is the true change to our climate.

We need more cows and ruminants to rebuild the mineral content in the soil as well. The only reason they fart is because they are fed animal based protein created by Big Pharma.

ahh, they should have predicted the outburst of nCOV in 2020!
 Atleast, this would have help countries that would have to love to sell the nCOV medication(s) to other countries at a high rate prepare in advance.

@Jet Cash,
"......energy cannot be destroyed....." energy cannot be destroyed.

Do you still believe this principle?

Thanks
Soldierwitlittlefaith

just to clear this matter up
33% increase but not a 33% temperature rise
they say average temperature was 15'c now 17'c =13% thus no correlation

the scientific equipment used to measure back to 1820 is not the same equipment method used for 1960+
expect anomalies between datasets using different models

also with oxygen at 780,000ppm and co2 at ~300->400ppm.. co2 is not the worry
nitrogen can change by 27000ppm purely due to if its raining or not.
the difference of rain in of itself can change by a few thousand ppm

and the funny part is. rather than taking a reading of co2 on a sunny day and a rainy day and just recorded the results as is.. after all thats the actual amount of carbon in the air, if it happend to be rainy they take that number and manipulte it into a number that represents a sunny day and just log everything as results from dry days

ok here is a test for you to try to realise how impactful something is.
ok  dry day. go to a city (high carbon) go just outside the city(low carbon) i bet there is not much temperature change
oh yea when in a city dont huddle against a skyscaper building using it as a wind break(intentional varienc). go to the top and then when in country go to a hill at the same altitude so the wind factor is the same (reduce manipulating variance)

ok now try a day where part of the day is sunny and the other part is rainy.. or be in an area of sun and drive to where its rainy. i bet the temperature is more noticable different

yep water in the atmosphere has bigger impact than carbon.

next funny fact. the warmer the temperature gets the more the water is evaporated from lakes/oceans, causing clouds which then cause temperatures to drop. (self fixing mechanism.. nature is good like that)

traffic, modern industry is said to account for just 90ppm change of atmospheric content. yes rain can make the difference of thousands of parts

so lets really concentrate on this carbon thing first
ok so they say todays 17'c average is based on 0.04% instead of previous 15'c of 0.03% 2'c increase for 0.01%
so imagine if 0.09%=12'c increase.
so imagine if 0.9%=120'c increase.
so imagine if 9%=1200'c increase.
so imagine if 90%=12000'c increase.

yet. planets like venus are 95% yet not anywhere near to 12,000'c
and also venus is closer to the sun so less heat lost in space so numbers should be even higher than 12,000'c
sorry but venus is under 500'c

here is a clue to the real climate change
RAIN forests. there are less of them meaning. less what (it begins with R)

same for the poles. snow doesnt miraculously turn up and layer the poles it comes from what.. wait.. no it doesnt magic up from less carbon. it comes from water

the water is the most impactful factor.
carbon emmissions are not that much atmosphere affecting. but water content is.

if you really think that a smoggy city on a dry day is hotter than a beach to such a degree that it makes a rainy day vs sunny day less impactful then here is another test

why isnt it hottest at 9am and 5pm when most commuters are driving to and from work/school. but is hotter/colder depending on if its a clear or rainy day

in short industry emissions is not the cause. its the lack of forests and soil rich in water. to allow for good evaporation.
these days water runs off buildings into gutters and then into drains, instead of evaporating from tree's and fields

most ocean based evaporation form clouds and then rains on the same oceans. thus hardly much lasts long enough to rain on mainlands to affect mainland results so dont try moving the observations that its oceans that cause differentials in mainland temperature studies

here is an analogy for you
co2 experts are saying co2 increased and temperature increase. thus co2 caused temperature
the analogy is that people with lung cancer have more stained teeth. thus stained teeth caused cancer

actual thing is
deforestation/ concreting and draining land of natural wet topsoil caused less water causing higher temperatures
the analogy, smoking ruins the lungs and stains the causing more risk of lung cancer

thats not to say that emissions are not harmful, as they can kill wildlife and harm human health. but thats a debate for biology not climatology

have a nice day

My approach is to always be skeptical, and whenever I'm assessing the veracity of any claim, the first question I always ask myself is 'what's in it for them?'. In some cases it's obvious - for example climate change deniers who have commercial interests in fossil fuels, but in other cases it can admittedly be very difficult - who funded which "independent" report. However I do think that 'what's in it for them?' is always the most important question to ask. If nothing else, it sets you on the path towards objective truth.

so only (small) changes in CO₂ alters rainfall or typhoon intensity?


I put this to you two:

• rainfall patterns have changed before, when CO₂ was not really changing
• typhoon intensity has changed before, again, when CO₂ was not really changing

not only that, but climate scientists are unanimous that CO₂ is not changing at an uncontrolled rate. A change of 0.01% over 200 years is not runaway exponential growth.

China is the last country that I would ask updates about climate change. Their country is one of the top carbon emissions and that is seen by the growing number of factories. It's not just China though; a lot of other countries that are and being urbanized have the largest contribution on the air pollution.
Global warming is real; climate change is REAL. As a Southeast Asian, I observed and experience that typhoons are getting stronger and their occurrences are increasing through the years.

I can say that global warming is real. when you are leaving in a tropical country you really feel the changed now. Here in our country, there are only 2 seasons of Sunny and Rainy seasons. Before when it was a Sunny season the only thing will come up to my head is no rain for a couple of months and the heat of the sun will cost the water supply to go below average. But now, Guess what? when Sunny seasons come, the water supply will go to almost nothing we ended up digging well so that we can have access to some water resources. also when its raining the rain is always above average. flooding all the time, this was not the case before though. That's why I think global warming is real it is happening right now.

It's really not all that confusing. For some reason you've taken 0.03% and 0.04% and put those out there with no clear context as far as I could see i.e. 03% of what? That's a percentage of volume and so the misleading statement is to say it's increase by 0.01% and is designed to make the layman see it as a tiny number. 33% is the correct scientific way of stating that increase.

I already said you can find it for yourself if you care enough to get the knowledge. I was looking for something else related to the oil industry and stumbled across it. I downloaded the documents and would have to go searching again to find the site. You can do that yourself. I will note you didn't include links to your data sooooooo...

You cherry picked information and one can only assume you did it to mislead, or you read information that was designed to mislead you. You failed to point out that the temperature increased prior to that period and then after it as well. Although I would have to say the time frame I found did not match yours but that's beside the point.

I want to know the real truth and have looked at what both sides of this argument have said. While those that promote climate change tend to exaggerate parts of it, I have yet to see anything from the other side that has convinced me they're the ones that are right. More often than not I find statistics being blatantly twisted to fit the narrative. Couple years back the climate change deniers were all hyped up about some report that "proved" the math was wrong. I read the report and just had to shake my head as it was clearly written in order to give that group talking points in order to convince people that would never understand it, but it sure sounded reasonable. But from a scientific standpoint it completely failed to prove that the underlying methods the scientific community uses were flawed.

I can see how this will go though. So I'll just end this with you and say good luck to you.

completely depends on what you mean when you use the word "increase"



I agree, and that's exactly what I've already said



no, the other way round.

when you mix "percentage change" (0.01%) and "percentage change in the percentage change" (33%) together, THAT's confusing.



link?

the real facts are that the whole anthropogenic climate change argument cherry picks facts and statistics to make a "case", and apparently uses semantic sleight of hand expressing statistical statements now too

• if you look at temperature from 1960-2020, it increases. We're all gonna die!!!!1
• but if you look at temperature from 1920-1960, it decreases, from a higher peak than 2020

• if you look at ocean level from 1800-2020, it increases. Dooooooom!!!!!1
• but if you look at ocean level from 10,000 BC to 2020 AD, it increases (at the same rate)

The climate change people are full of these nonsense presentation strategies, and they wouldn't need to do it if their argument had any legs to stand on

I bolded the most important line in the entire thread.

This is the cause of all the pollution/global warming and the solution is simple showers and oral sex . A world wide reduction in population caused by lots of oral sex.

Once we shrink the worlds population to 4 billion a lot of the other problems leave us.

Of course we all know it won’t happen this way. What will happen is massive flooding and death over the next 50 years.

The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%. Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate.

Here. I'll do the math for you.. 0.04 - 0.03 / 0.03 = 0.33 or, 33%. Saying it's 0.01% "increase" as opposed to difference, is usually what people do when they want to mislead someone into thinking it's not as big as it is.

As per the OP and "who to believe", a couple documents were leaked awhile back from internal reports for Exxon and Shell. Both of them outlined the same sort of stuff that the climate change people have been saying. That was in the 80s and the reports said that we wouldn't be able to really tell until the turn of the century or within 5-30 years as the oceans might delay temperature increases etc. Those companies have known what was coming for a long time so it's "entertaining" to see them fund some of the anti climate change groups etc while at the same time, very slowly and quietly moving into more green industries and also related ones that are impacted by increases in CO2 etc. The info is out there for anyone to dig up on their own as I did.

Seriously..?? Whatever dude! Nobody needed the flat-earther..You are the one quoting him so apparently, you did.

^^^^


you see, you guys literally need flat-earthers to support your argument, this is clever stuff



Carlton: 3 + 1 = 4
climate doomsday breathing tax people: no no no, 3 + 1 = 33% 33% 33% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Carlton: 3 + 1 still equals 4, unfortunately
flat-earther: why that's right, 3 + 1 = 4! The earth is flat


laaaame

Astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archeology, theoretical physics, psychology & psychiatry just to name a few "modern" sciences that don't adhere to the scientific method and can't withstand even modest criticism.


I hate to break it to you, but there's no "planet A" either.




"I’m pleased to announce that on this Shavuot/Pentecost, the 9th of Sivan, that the judge presiding over a civil court case in which I was being sued for the amount of $15,000, ruled in my favor and sided with the evidence I presented." -- https://www.stolenhistory.org/threads/2019-court-case-globe-vs-flat-earth.1338/

that's as vague/wrong as you are, and so really proves my point that if you're not careful with the language describing the statistic, then you will end up misleading readers

so, for the millionth time now, I will make it clear:

• CO₂ increased from 0.03% to 0.04% since the 1800's, a difference of 0.01%
• that difference, expressed as a percentage, is 33% (0.01 is 33% of 0.03)

do you understand this yet?

(in before "no, the increase was 33%, you're totally wrong" )




how could you come to that conclusion, when I didn't say it


why are you putting words in my mouth? you don't need to do that, unless there's something wrong with your argument

This is where the argument about you calculating the percentage wrongly actually started:


The math is basically settled that if someone asks that How much has CO2 concetration increased from pre-industrial levels, they will quote the 20-40% figure depending on what baseline you take. Check this BBC report that quotes "has increase by about 40%".This report says "20% increase in less than 40 years"

Lets put it to rest as it really doesn't matter how the motley three of us look at the figure in this rather non-descript corner of the BCT forum.

Lets just agree that if you can accuse us of saying that "it is alarmist to show 300 PPM to 400 PPM as a 33% increase", then you can be similarly accused of supporting those who want to continue polluting the environment by saying that "Hey, its not a problem, Carbon has only gone up by 0.01%".

The real question as you say is:

Which is what i wanted to ask from your discussion on percentage increase not being a problem when i said:

---

So yeah, the three of us have been wasting our breath on the percentage argument.

When you say whether this is dangerous or not, that is when we get to that stage of climate skepticism that says, "Hey its just not hot enough yet". The basic infographic on any climate report I have seen quotes the worldwide observations like reduced polar ice caps, Receding Glaciers, Erratic Weather patterns. I have spent at least 2 decades seeing the summers getting harsher and watching people face drought conditions. So when i see that report and match it with my personal experience as well as what Discovery/ NG shows on the receding polar ice caps, I go, oh well, maybe it is increasing.

I am interested in knowing that what makes you think that 0.04% (+0.01 or 33% increase.. )is not dangerous. We have to consider that if emissions keep increasing at the same rate, this percentage of the total will increase resulting in the 1.5 deg celsius temperature increase that needs to be adhered to as per consensus. What is the harm in erring on the side of caution when its supposedly the planet's inhabitability which is at stake?

Like I keep asking and you keep ignoring, What is the solution from your side of the non-alarmist debate. What sources are you referring to? Are there any or you are just feeling colder as years pass by like I feel warmer here around the tropics..?? LOL..

Also, Should I start a separate topic on this if @Saltypitoon and you would be interested AND if we can stop hurling insults and expressing skepticism at each other's mental faculties...??LOL..

you've been saying something that sounds very like that half a dozen times.

I am glad you have finally conceded the point, will you take back what you said about basic math, seeing as I demonstrated very early on that I know how to calculate both the percentage change and the absolute difference?

You claimed me doing a simple subtraction was actually an inept attempt at calculating the percentage difference, but it's plainly obvious that you were trying to use a tactic to confuse people that couldn't follow the math (which, as you yourself said, is so basic that almost nobody would have been confused)



I'm saying neither, and I have been consistent in doing so


Below, you are agreeing with my argument:


it is the absolute amount as part of a whole causes the problem, from either botulism or CO₂


again (see if you understand this yet):

the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

the real question is: is 400ppm CO₂ (i.e. 0.04%) dangerous?

Absolute difference is completely useless without some type of scale of the significance of 1 unit. I'm not arguing that 400 ppm - 300 ppm = 100 ppm is incorrect, but you can either represent that as a 100ppm increase or a 33% increase, not a 0.01% difference which would be 1.0001 x the initial amount. That is the proper representation. Representation of scientific data is a big deal, you are trying to make an argument, but your argument is completely invalid until you begin to represent your data correctly.

If you could represent it the way you intend to, it seems like your argument is that 100ppm is a small number and is therefore insignificant. By that logic I could say 300 ppm is an equally insignificant number, so CO2 plays no role in our atmosphere. We know that isn't the case, it plays some measurable affect on earth's temperature. If 300 played X effect on temperature, its fair to expect that 400 will play 1.33X effect on however CO2 contributes.


0.000000070 Kg of botulism is enough to kill you. The difference between 0.000000070 and 0.000000140 is only 0.000000070.

If I tried representing something the way you have, I'd be fired and laughed out of the scientific community, so its not me playing word games or just being petty about, "you know what I'm saying man". (redundant disclaimer: I'm not involved in climate science) Get your statements in order and then state them. You can't claim anything based on incorrect math.

(I predict a reply "the percentage increase is the only factor, the increase measured as a percentage is the only thing that's changing"
or "no, the difference is 33%")


how are you measuring the percentage change if you keep pretending the absolute difference doesn't exist?


your charge of "can't do basic math" is a joke, in order to hold your position, you're having to avoid using addition and subtraction (the most basic mathematical concepts that even the simplest animals understand) so that you can trick readers into thinking that the absolute difference in 2 measurements does not exist

you're a joke, SaltySpitoon. You literally cannot be serious with this BS.

ok then, the difference is 0.01%


you're making pathetic semantic arguments, really

---

answer the following question:


which is actually the driving factor in the greenhouse effect? is it:

• the percentage change in CO₂
• the proportion of CO₂ of the whole

(anyone will tell you it's the proportion of the atmosphere, the change can be from any starting point. there's a colossal difference between a 1% increase in 99% and a 1% increase in 0.99%)


you're banging on and on about the percentage increase, when it's not even relevant to the greenhouse effect anyway.

the absolute amount is what actually matters, remember, the figure I keep posting, the one you keep disingenuously saying doesn't exist, despite it being a step in the calculations to the irrelevant figure you keep repeating

tl;dr the change doesn't matter, the amount does. if it's changing, then how much it changes to is what matters

Its not your private delusion, I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there right now having trouble with percents.

I know exactly what you are saying, and I'm just saying that you are wrong. You are mathing poorly and making statements that are untrue. % implies as a fraction. Parts per million in our case. Saying there is an increase of 0.01% means that there is an increase of 1 part per 10,000 of whatever the initial condition is. A 0.01% increase of 3 results in 3.0003. A 0.01% increase of 300 parts per million (0.000300) means you'd have 0.00030003 not 0.000400, which is incorrect.


The increase is 33%. You can say that an increase from 300ppm to 400 ppm is 100ppm over the last 200 years, that is correct. What you are saying is misleading for this purpose. Lets say that instead of 300ppm to 400 ppm we have 300 to 400 ppb so 0.000000300 to 0.000000400. The change is still 33% however you'd be stating it as 0.00001% which dilutes all meaning from the statistic. We have percents to help us recognize the significance of change.

I've pointed you towards more than a few resources at this point. I'm just going to assume you are dense and let anyone else that feels like trying to help you pass your upcoming math quiz contribute. I really wanted you to get that shiny gold star, but I don't have time to help you solve your brain problem if you aren't looking for help. I think you may have better luck with your argument here: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751&page=1
they spent 129 pages arguing how many days there are in a week.

let's try again


atmospheric CO₂ has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%


It's impossible to argue with that statement, and the math literally proves it.

Yet you continue to pretend that the nominal difference figure does not exist, and that if you keep repeating the percentage change figure over and over again, that the nominal difference is a fantasy?


You're a liar, @SaltySpitoon, you know exactly what I mean and are continuing to play dumb


answer this question without prevarication:

you keep re-stating the percentage change figure. Percentage change of what?

the answer is the percentage change in nominal difference, which you keep pretending is my own private delusion you lying toad

4 is 33% of 12, but 0.0004 is also 33% of 0.0012 I guess? Do I need to show my work, or will you believe me? In case you didn't find the math for dummies book solution to your problem, here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-0MwmCpE8


My major point in posting in this thread originally was that the difference in knowing who to believe today versus long ago is that today there are an uncountable number of platforms one can get disinformation from people who think they know what they are talking about. This has been a great example.

interesting, do please tell us all again

It is not, you are doing math wrong. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+calculate+percent+change

0.0000000000000000000000000003 to 0.0000000000000000000000000004 is a 33% change, as is the case with 0.03 to 0.04 or 0.0003 to 0.0004

What you are doing is incredibly dishonest, as I refuse to believe that even you believe what you are saying. This isn't a case where we are doing a difficult problem and came to two separate answers, you are being deceptive by using incorrect math that again, its blatantly obvious to everyone with a middle school education.

percent implies a change, an initial and final value and what fraction of the initial value must be added to reach a final value. Again, not hard math. You are arguing that the scale of the initial and final numbers matters. Percentages are not additive like whatever you are trying to do.

Please tell me how its deceptive if we do the math correctly? I would expect that 99.99% of people here absolutely understand what I'm saying when I say there has been a 33% increase in CO2 between the time scale we've been discussing assuming a change from 300ppm to 400ppm.

*Edit*

First, lets keep in mind that we haven't talked about a single controversial topic to this point, we haven't talked about global warming at all, just what is a percent. The reason I'm irritated with you, is that our conversation started when I asked you where you were getting your figure from and presented an example with a 15 year chart and data that I snagged online as to why I was confused by your statement. You accused me of being misleading for some reason, and at that point I assumed you were talking about some other metric besides atmospheric concentration so I asked you to elaborate. Instead, you went on a personal attack when I apologized for misunderstanding you about how it was all some ploy to trick you and others. Then come to find out, I wasn't misunderstanding anything, you were just doing (and are still doing) math incorrectly and making incorrect statements. You've accused me of intentionally misleading others when the sole source of confusion is your own lack of understanding of simple mathematics which you can easily look up online to see that I'm correct. I'm being petty about all of this because of the consideration I showed you only to have it thrown back in my face, and its due to the absolute lowest common denominator of misrepresentation.  

yes, let's not.

although it is a little strange that the pair of you are continually saying:

"3 + 1 = 4 is incorrect, 3 + 1 = 33%"




ok. It's not just "according to me", but according to every credible climate scientist



didn't say that
 


all I said was "3 + 1 = 4", to which you 2 both replied "no, it's 33%"


you consistently evaded the point that 33% increase sounds like a large increase, but it's a large increase in a very small number. which is strange behavior for people who think that facts are important, and who purport to be presenting a fact-based argument.

I presented a fact, and you both kept trying to divert away from that fact by manipulating the argument. And yet you apparently agree that the fact I presented is indeed factual.

Fine. Let us not worry about the Maths. Lets look at the logic of the non-alarmist viewpoint you are supporting. I request you to help me understand your viewpoint.

You are essentially saying that in 1880 CO₂ was only 0.03% of atmosphere. In 2019 it is only 0.04%. According to you, this should not be taken very seriously. We can safely wait for it to reach maybe 0.5% or 1% and then we could be concerned. Till then we have all this other 99% of atmosphere which is Not CO₂ and is completely fine and survivable.

This is maybe also the reason you feel that saying "An increase of 300 PPM to 400 PPM is a 33% increase" is alarmist. Please let me know if i understand this correctly.




 

it's so simple, yet you seem to want to make it complicated

• the year 1800: 0.03% CO₂
• the year 2020: 0.04% CO₂

that's an easy to understand difference of 0.01%. or an increase of 100 parts per million, if you prefer.

I think anyone who followed the math at this point can see who wants to bamboozle, and who's trying to make it easy to understand.


Why would anyone want to make it hard to understand, or start to throw insults around?

Oh My God. Climate researchers always find it hard to clarify that "The Science is settled". Is it going to be Mathematics too now?  It is one thing  believing what I want to believe. It is an entirely different thing proposing Alternate-Mathematics.

If I had 300 Satoshis and I get a 33.33% return everyday.
I'll have an additional (33.33% x 300= 100 Sats) the next day.
Second day total would be 400 Sats.

The percentages wouldn't change if i said that i have 0.000003BTC instead?

I apologize, I didn't account for you not knowing middle school level math. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% change. Going from 10 to 20 is a 100% change, going from 100 to 200 is a 100% change. The order of magnitude doesn't fundamentally change how percents are calculated, you are missing the step where you divide by the initial value.

[(final - initial)/ initial] x 100

[(4e^-4 - 3e^-4) / 3e^-4 ] x 100.

here you go. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html

*edit* Sorry I'm being a jerk at this point but just gonna leave this here

A change of 0.01% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.0001  for a total of 300.03ppm or (3.0003x10^-4)
A change of 33.33% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.3333 for a total of 399.99ppm or ~ (4x10^-4)

you're hiding the 0.01% component of the calculation in the expression you're using....

4.e^-4 - 3.e^-4 = 0.0001 x 100 = 0.01% (adjustment to a percentage needs to be multiplied by 100)

there's the math you said didn't exist, you d/hid it yourself. it's inconceivable that you can continue to pretend that the absolute change is not 0.01%, and that this (very basic) math is entirely correct


and 33% of what?


a very very small proportion (0.03%, which you have finally conceded, despite stating I was using non-existent math to obtain the difference change in the same figure)


but do keep hand waving, and overcomplicating the issue, by all means

33%, that isn't "scary" it is what it is? If I say we have 3 puppies and now we have 4, thats a 33% increase. If I say we have 300 millionths of a puppy and now we have 400 millionths of a puppy, you might be scared of cloning, but it is what it is. If you are scared of a percent, that means you are scared of a conclusion drawn from that. Its beyond ridiculous to accuse someone a fear mongering because you think they should present the number in a different manner.


The data I found and posted above says theres been an increase of about 8% in the past 15 years, I can keep a straight face and tell you thats about 2% per year on average between the years 2005 and 2019. If thats spooky to you for some reason that sucks I guess? It doesn't mean much to me except that the index of refraction of the atmosphere is changing and the lenses need to be re-angled occasionally to get a proper scan of the earth.

again, you're choosing a more alarming statistic.

Why would you want to make it sound scarier than it really is? you don't need to be any kind of expert to present all the relevant figures that cna be calculated from the raw data, anyone who knows basic mathematics can do it (you seem to be saying the opposite, that only sufficiently esteemed climate researchers are permitted to present simple deductions, that anything you or I would say is inherently invalid, yet we should listen to you and not to me. completely contradicting yourself, in other words)



so, here a simple peasant will clarify, where you choose to make things opaque:


parts per million means "how many parts within 1 million parts", i.e. a proportion of a whole (and no different to a simple percentage figure)

• 300 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 300 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.03%
• 400 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 400 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.04%
• the difference between 0.03% and 0.04% is: 0.04 - 0.03 = no way, it's 0.01
• 0.01 as a percentage of 0.03 is, as you say: 0.01 / 0.03 * 100 = 33%

I amply illustrate above that there are 2 relevant ways of measuring change in CO₂, absolute change (100 parts per million, equivalent to 0.01%), or the percentage rate of change (the proportion of 100 parts per million of increase in relation to a 300 parts per million baseline)


it's impossible to calculate the rate of change at all (which you are saying is the only statistic which you permit to exist) without first calculating the absolute difference.

yet when I say "the absolute difference is 0.01%", you can keep a straight face while replying "don't know what kind of math you're using"

---

tl;dr you're saying my math doesn't exist, and yet it's impossible to calculate your figure without first doing my supposedly non-existent math

@SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly

I don't think we are saying the same things..You are not looking at the Carbon credits scheme as a solution to incentivize emission-reduction. Although we agree on this, yet you also need to view it without the lens of " all polluters are powerful, evil industries". It is a global issue that required coordination between countries too. Why should a country like India or Nigeria accept the same levels of reduction as the historic polluters? (Even though India has stupidly done this since 2014 and have seen the economy struggle since then).

Viewing it all as an economic conspiracy cannot make the real problem go away. I keep asking, What is the solution on your side of the belief for the problem??


The love of "Us vs Authority" is also visible in the way a large section of early bitcoin supporters no longer see eye to eye with the Core Devs.  This is also something that was so visible at the forum with Newbies and the Older members. A lot of the loud-mouths just do it to spite authority.
Ohh and "Google effect" like you said in the last post.. There was a time before the internet revolution when forming an opinion on a matter needed in-depth study, a few library visits or at least, having read a few books on topic. Today, I can comment on Banking, Climate change, Artificial Intelligence, Pop culture, Music..All at the same time..

Earlier we all agreed on what each one of us knew. Now it often becomes a competition on who first googled the slam-dunk argument...lol..It can lend a very disrupting tone to discussion at times.

I'm not sure what type of math you are doing, but an increase from 300 parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion to 400 parts per million etc is a 33% increase. I'm not really interested in talking with you because you are immediately on the attack about nonsense alarmist or whatever. An 8% increase over a 15 year period when compared against similar periods means that something is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Its not possible that these rapid increases over short periods of time have happened in the past, otherwise the natural cycles that the earth has gone through would have been far more rapid. We see changes occur over a 20 year span that happened without human action over 300 million years. That tends to point to human action being related. We figured out what happened over those 300 million years as a result, and we conclude the same thing will occur again at a much faster rate.

So what does that mean for humanity? I don't know nor do I care, I just know that you need to factor in the change each year when you are scanning the earth otherwise your images get a little blurry.

*edit* We are actually off track here, so I'll just close with an on topic conclusion. The people who are actually capable of interpreting data and coming to useful conclusions are completely isolated for those that aren't. People who google some info to become experts and find third party information from someone making incorrect assumptions or doing a half ass job are louder than those that are quietly plugging away at problems with their colleagues. As a result, the people who debate topics like these are the ignorant and the ignorant. I don't know enough about the matter of CO2 to be working on it to tell you point by point where you have made errors in your assumptions. As a result, if I try, you can pick apart points that I make due to my own lack of knowledge. We can't trust the teams that have a combined 300 years of research on the matter, because they are the paid off corrupt authorities, so I guess we go back to listening to idiots with blogs. You can call it throwing in the towel if it'd make you feel better, but I'm going to call it preventing perpetuating incorrect information exchange.

increases in the proportion of other atmospheric gases also affect parts per million measurements of any other atmospheric gas


I also don't understand why you want to talk about an issue on which all sides agree

---

instead of presenting easily misinterpreted statistics, why not use a simple criteria using the same type of measurement:


CO₂ as a proportion of the atmosphere increased from 300 parts per million pre-industry to 400 parts per million in 2020. Which is a 0.01% increase, if you're using parts per million.

how strange, that's the exact figure I posted to begin with, so specifying the units as a proportion of the whole instead of a proportion without stating the measurement unit makes essentially no difference.


Unless you're trying to find a number that is as high as possible, to support the alarmist view, which you appear to be doing.

Why stop with 8% percentage change in the change of absolute percentage change? You could have used the figure for the rate at which the rate has increased since C19th, the most alarming figure possible!!! What would it be, 400% increase in the rate of change, maybe? At least then casual observers might wonder how on earth that's possible, until they sat back and thought about what the statistic really means.

And sitting back and thinking "what does an 8% increase in the percentage proportion really mean?" is exactly what any responsible person will do. And an irresponsible one will casually throw that statistic into a conversation that's about a completely different measure.

please forgive my reading comprehension 

I was talking about concentration in parts per million. Concentration as a % of the atmosphere isn't a very useful metric, there are a million factors not at all related to CO2 that would affect it. For example, you could continuously increase the CO2 in the atmosphere but also, lets say add argon, and the concentration as a % of the atmosphere of CO2 would decrease. It'd take all day to list all of the reasons why concentration of CO2 in parts per million should be the primary metric used when trying to understand the addition or removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

I was quite explicit.

If I meant % rate of increase, I would have said that. I didn't. You meant that, but are using ambiguous language to muddy the waters. If not, you're just really bad at expressing yourself clearly, and so have no business picking my words apart.


You know what I said, but still chose to go for the "oh I'm so confused, maybe you mean this alarming sounding statistic?" approach

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the language. When you are talking about % CO2, do you mean as a percentage of the entire atmosphere, or increase of CO2 by some % in parts per million?


source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

shows an ~ 8% increase in the past 14 years. I haven't looked over the data personally so I'm not going to defend this chart to the death, but the data is available for review.

that's the non-controversial part that (apparently nearly everyone) agrees on; 0.03% CO₂ pre 1900, 0.04% CO₂ at the beginning of C21st. It's frankly surprising that you claim never to have heard this, it is an often repeated pair of data points


if your friends are correct, then the alarmist perspective is also correct.

assuming a linear trend (which would be a conservative assumption seeing as energy production and vehicle use are in an upward trend), that's a 0.12% increase per year, in 50 years a 6% increase. That really would change the strength of the greenhouse effect, although the full effects are subject to decades of lag.


something tells me that the IPCC people would be screaming with blue faces about such a thing if that were really the case though.


Or, are you simply stating that CO₂ measurements oscillates by up to 0.01% in a given month? i.e. it increases or decreases by 0.01% about a longer term trend?

Fine, let me specify that to, I've never heard the immediate disastrous belief from anyone that I've spoken to. My conversations with people that you dont know and for all you know may not exist aren't supposed to sway your opinion one way or another, my statement was more a cautionary rant about who you listen to. People discard opinions by the guy who has spent 30 years researching a narrow topic because they once got paid from someone with a vested interest that lies somewhere, so instead we listen to a guy on twitter who spreads incorrect information.

As a side note, why do you think that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone up by 0.01% since the industrial age? I've worked briefly on aerosol studies with relation to weather mapping and satellite imaging and can probably say that atmospheric CO2 concentration has gone up by over 0.01% over the past month. I say probably, as that wasn't an individual variable that we had accounted for, but there was a factor of atmospheric change which some other department put together which accounted for "greenhouse gases" and other particulate matter as a whole.

*edit* That wasn't a pitch as to why you should believe me, that was my reason for being curious where you were getting that idea from.

scientists who refute the IPCC consensus don't "deny climate change" either (you appear to be putting words in their mouth)


those scientists agree with the basic science (almost all are former adherents of the IPCC consensus), but that the methodology for the temperature trends the IPCC people present is bad, and that their conclusions are biased towards the disaster-ist position as a result.

• Greenhouse effect is real
• and so then must be greenhouse gases
• CO₂ is a greenhouse gas
• CO₂ increased as a proportion of the constitution of the atmosphere since the industrial age, by 0.01%

all of the above is empirically factual or systemically demonstrable


but to say that we must all join a CO₂ death cult/middle ages sinners absolution based on the above is not at all clear. casually saying we should all do it because of an anecdote about some scientists someone met isn't even slightly meaningful, I'm sure they all had a favorite sandwich too, but I'm not going to start taking dietary advice from them either

I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.

Fractional reserve banking is actually brilliant, the stability and flexibility it brings to the table is vast compared to any other monetary system that we've ever had in the past. A reserve system sounds like it'd be monetarily sound, but do you know how many thousands of times they've failed in the past? Fiat and how it works is completely separate from Bitcoin and thats just lovely. Who would possibly be against more choices in their financial systems? I've spoken to research scientists on a daily basis for the past few years and not a single one has ever denied climate change. They are just a bunch of nerds arguing over who's model is 0.0017% more accurate based on data excluded from Silurian period in another model. Climate change "natzis" are likely just another wing of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Factual and well researched objective reports are what I'd say are common place. You are absolutely correct that every so often, studies are bought off or commercial interests are put ahead of safety. The reason why its such a big deal when it does occur is because its not usual. There are millions of studies going on every day over whether berries will make you immortal or you can knock over goats with your mind. They'll yield some sort of result if the procedures are done and reported properly. Then they get peer reviewed and torn apart.

Become an authority in your own field and believe yourself.

^^^ someone get some old British war movies out to keep Jet Cash quiet, he's repeating himself again

I scanned some of the reports mentioned here, and I tried to find a reference to water vapour, and I couldn't see any. Water vapour ( clouds etc. ) is the single largest creator of the "greenhouse effect", but it is excluded from almost all of the public reports. This is why I believe there is a political agenda behind the global  warming industry. A Carbon Dioxide famine is one of the factors that increase water vapour in the atmosphere. The effect of Carbon Dioxide is negligible, and is still within the bounds of historic records.

RE climate, just take a look at the very abundant public data. There is no "planet B"

so, you're saying that I misunderstood the carbon credit scheme


but your outline of the scheme is essentially identical to what I stated

• credits are created
• big polluters sell the credits they do not need

that's more or less exactly what I said.

what makes you think these highly dubious characters with bad reputations for corruption will not game that system? By adhering to this nonsense without due diligence (instead you believe the information you are given from known bad actors), you are doing the job of the energy industry to force it on everyone.

we won't need to buy any credits? well, possibly that promise will exist when the scheme begins. how reliable do you think that promise will be

---

but it's all moot when the science has been distorted (not wrong, distorted), and the data which motivated the whole field cannot withstand basic peer review.


there is a whole group of climate scientists that have done published studies that contradicts the basis of anthropogenic climate change. why would you ignore this, and just repeat 1 side of a 2 sided story over an over again? do you want to believe in an "end of the world" scenario? it is said that no-one ever went out of business selling stories that predict the end of the world

but hey, don't listen to me. just pay your exhalation (i.e. breathing) taxes!!! have fun with that

Banks, have you studied the issuance of the Carbon-Credit under the present system? It does not work the way you were telling earlier. The total allowable carbon credits is fixed at the start and then decreases each year. From my reading, this is how it works:

1. The total GHG emission in tonnes during the baseline year defines the total available credits.
2. These are allocated as allowances to polluting industries.
3. The available credits decrease every year to achieve the Emission reduction target (as taken up in form of NDC's under Paris Agreement)
4. Industries that use beyond allowable allowances need to buy credit.
5. Industries that implement clean-tech (at significant costs) stand to save some part of their allowance which they can sell.

There is nothing suspicious in this. These are the only industries that are covered under the scheme. There is no "us" to whom they can sell these credits. At least that is what people should know. Individuals aren't supposed to buy Carbon Credits as an investment. Those are generally just scams. They are to be traded among the polluters themselves.

Once again, I think we are reading from vastly different sources. Like i said above, there is no "power to print" carbon credits. Of course there is the power to buy and sell them based on how much a polluting corporation can save from its "annual allocated allowance".

I think that you are trying to tell me that the data is wrong and that there is not as much warming as people want to project (promoted by the big industries so they can create a market). This is a point i don't find convincing for the reason I explained above. Your understanding of the "Carbon Credit Printing" isn't how this works.

Also, Didn't i ask this to you first..? LOL..  I have been pretty clear on this that the Paris Agreement and Emission allowance market is the way to go. You cannot just force present corporations  out of business and usher in an era of only Clean energy corporations.
Steps are needed so that all countries/ companies have the incentive to make investments in clean energy. People will never do this out of the "goodness" of their hearts.  I am sure you know this way better than me.
We need a different thread.

EDIT: I think you mistakenly put my sentence in your own quotes in the previous reply. With all the "bots" going around, you should probably edit it..

so, the point is that someone must issue the carbon credits, and they must do it according to some rationale

and I outlined the rationale above. Although I missed out perhaps the most significant detail; those who produce most CO₂ are those with the most leverage to decrease their output.



think about it; the big oil and gas extractors & the fossil fuel based electricity production industries fit this profile more or less exactly. They create more CO₂ than anyone else, because they are the root source of all the carboniferous products.

and so they have been anointed as the carbon credit controllers, they control the supply, and the price. but none of this was in their interests all along, right? they just had to fight all this taking away bestowal of extra political power all through the 70's and 80's

it was probably (at least at some point in the development of this culture) a simple reverse psychology trick: "oh no IPCC!! please don't give us the power to print and sell carbon credits as a worldwide monopoly!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!"




there was other climate change news this week too


when you measure the average temperature change of the planet from suitably equipped satellites, not from a cherry-picked range of non-standard weather stations in unevenly distributed locations, there is no discernible or statistically significant warming trend over the last decade, despite the increases in CO₂

so, what do you think we should do about the problem?

Carbon Credit legislation (Kyoto Protocol et al) came out of the need to bring the developed and developing economies on board. The parties involved are Governments of developed countries whose interests align with those of major polluting corporations'. There are developing countries and others which deem it unfair to have themselves restricted in this way because their share of Global Industrial emissions (at that point of time) wasn't as big.

I have generally seen it as quite a clever way to bring these disparate interests together so that "selfish parties can be made to act for the common good because of Market forces". I respect your opinion but I'll have to see where your above mentioned belief is coming from? Or maybe I'll just google to see what I can find (despite having to face OP's Trust conundrum ). Lets see what new I can learn.

Say, if we agree that Copenhagen summit, Paris treaty, Kyoto etc. is a big farce, sponsored by the most powerful people, then what according to this school of thought is the solution? Isn't it well-documented that the oil industry actively worked against Climate change theories beginning in the 70s-80s?
They changed the track to dominate the renewable's market. This is because those who have the money to invest will do it anyways. After Tesla, there has been a host of manufacturers who have warmed up to the prospect of Electric cars and are thus coming out with models of their own.
Again, like i said, what is the solution if not these international treaties?? Its a global issue and compromises have to be made between countries.

I think we are reading from vastly different sources. Damn Google/ youtube suggestions!!

Yet, I am convinced that not everything is reported correctly, so their data is incomplete.
Maybe I am wrong, but if the industry or governments are the ones doing the reporting, the reality is much worse than most of that data.

no, this is incorrect

the fossil fuel industry is promoting the anthropogenic climate change agenda rather heavily, and they stand to gain, for this reason:


fossil fuel industry plan to benefit from these circumstances thusly:

• Promote carbon credits legislation
• Continue extraction and usage of fossil fuels
• Use new tech to slowly reduce the CO₂ output of extraction & energy production (scrubbers, sequestration etc)
• Record how much CO₂ emissions they prevented
• Sell the amount saved to us, as carbon credits

can we trust them, and the regulators who measure and certify their efforts, not to cheat? I doubt it, personally

if your point is (and it was): "we can't trust big oil or big energy in general", you'd be right. But look at what you're trusting them with when you accept the anthropogenic climate change position



can you see the greater political danger in giving this much more power to a group of organisations, who openly admit they are a cartel, over which significant armed conflicts have dominated the past 100 years, and all of that at the expense of everyday people whose political power is rapidly diminishing?

You are being tricked by these very powerful people, please get a grip before they institute any of this planned power-grab



it's not that simple

how much is bad? The fact that you are willing to use such open-ended, non specific expressions leads me to believe that you don't even care what the details of the pro anthropogenic climate change argument even are

because the pro-anthropogenic change argument is not "CO₂ is bad"

the argument is "this proportion of CO₂ is bad"


guess what? I agree with the latter statement. I disagree with anthropogenic climate change proponents on what the dangerous proportion is.

and the major flaw in the argument: reality agrees with me. cherry picked statistics, of course, do not, and that's the only way that anthropogenic climate change arguments can be made; using biased statistics and computer models that reinforce the anthropogenic hypotheses, but deliberately ignore the overall context that does not support the anthropogenic hypothesis

the evidence that biased statistics and computer models are being used to further the anthropogenic argument is abundant, and increasingly so

Those reports are there if you look for them, they're lengthy and they cite other reports and data, no one piece of information is without bias or error.

Here's one website for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

They have reports on just about everything and from my limited time reading them they don't seem biased.


I'm very interested in climate change and it's a subject that takes nuanced thinking, which is at times counter-intuitive. You have to be truly open to new ideas and to understanding a little bit of physics.


Other than that, look for other critical thinkers that make facts and figures based arguments that you can follow yourself. My favorite one is ThunderF00t on YouTube. I really like his style of debunking nonsense and in the process I learn a little bit of science.

He debunks a lot of bullshit, including things that well respected people try to sell to the public, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk), solar roadways, powedered alcohol and other nonsense that the media just repeats without giving it a second thought.


We're all wrong at times, but if you at least arrive to a conclusion by understanding the logic behind it you have a higher chance of being right and a lower chance of being misled.


In short here's where I stand:

The earth is warming and climate change is our greatest challenge yet (as a species).
Bitcoin is strong and as it keeps scaling and improving we'll see more uses.
I don't know enough about statins.
Fractional reserve banking is stealing. The banks can use money that doesn't exist, I don't understand what, if anything stops them from buying a bunch of stock in all of the companies, even the ones that fail, and basically owning most of the wealth without doing any of the work.



I'd also like to add that climate change requires an open mind to study it. You have to be open to learning a little bit of physics.

about 500 Million years ago the co2 ranged in the thousands (a high of about 5000ppm) but the sun wasn't as hot yet. More recently at a co2 similar to the one we have today, the earth was much hotter and the sea level was much higher. In fact New York and Miami and Tampa and my home would be many stories/levels under the sea's surface.


It's however easy to see that plants are not taking up all the co2 in the atmosphere and so it's going up. Plants eat co2 that much is true, but they also require a good climate. Climate Change will turn many areas into deserts.

Other areas that will thaw out will not necessarily become covered in trees simply because soil takes thousands of years to develop. The rate at which we're changing the climate is not the same rate is it would naturally change itself.


If we slowly had increased co2 to 400, or even 1000ppm but we did it over 1 million years all of our grain crops and forests could adapt, new species and ecosystems would arise.

This is not what's happening here. The rate of climate change is very important. Right now we're causing the six mass extinction.


Climate Change can also bring colder winters and more snow to a lot of people. More water in the atmosphere means more snow in certain areas. In certain cases there could be both devastating ice loss and snow falls at the same place.

The loss of ice limiting the area that the locals can hunt in and travel to nearby villages and the snow just worsening things.

Also who's to say that even if certain plants grow faster that that's a good thing. Bush-fires are scary, more water in the atmosphere, higher temperatures and more co2 means that unless people in areas prone to bushfires learn to manage the forests around them carefully they're risking losing their lives or all of their belongings year after year.


For the entirety of humanity's past in the planet co2 was much lower. We've fucked things up. Things will never be the same. Maybe if more people could understand the science a little better we could at least ride things out a little smoother.

Just a few billions of people dying happily dosed with pain killers in their 70s,80s and 90s rather than starving to death in poverty in their 20s.

You are absolutely right that Storage isn't mature enough to allow renewable sources to cater to base load requirements on their own. That is why we still need Coal/Gas fired plants. Yet, I meant it in a developing country context that why these parallel targets are necessary.

This is an on-going debate in India. Power equipment manufacturers have their order-books spread thin as Govt. has slowed down funding for conventional power plants owing to their climate change commitments. I believe USA under Trump pulled out of the agreement to safeguard mining, automobile jobs. Its much tougher for India to do so.

The problem with India and China is the sheer concentration of humanity here. The detrimental health effects are proving to be a huge healthcare cost in Indian cities. Indian planners have to balance between the need for additional power against the environmental/healthcare costs of going ballastic on conventional power plants.
Like I said earlier, Indian plants are more polluting compared to the well-managed power plants that Jet Cash is mentioning. The coal quality is low with a higher sulphur content, lower calorific value resulting in higher ash content. Compared to western/ European plants, few have Desulpharization or Catalyitc converters to take care of SOX/ NOX (Which as Carlton pointed out have severe immediate health effects). Investments in this direction have just started and that too is big business. Hope you can see why parallel renewable targets are important for a country like India.

That reply was more towards Fish as he pointed out carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels and batteries, and then you said, "I agree that batteries"..Well.. LOL..You are right about the need for a middle path here. (Better management of conventional plants). I am not on the Climate change denial side which I guess even you are not, though it seemed to me that you are because of "Solar isn't renewable".

We probably disagree on the reasons and the ways to mitigate that. (Let me know if am judging this correctly.)
For the dilemma on science, when it is not known who is right, maybe we could look at the motivations. Those who deny climate change typically belong to the established coal, petroleum, automobile industries. It is but natural that they don't want anything to eat into their substantial profits. I feel that the renewable supporters (not the renewables industry) are the under-dogs here.

We have sufficient non-arable land to cover with Solar panels that will not lead to the affects that you are concerned about. In India, there are plans to install solar panels along railway tracks. There has already been efforts to use Water Canals for this purpose. Even train coaches with solar panels installed on roofs to cater to Lighting usage. So, Allow me to say that for incremental improvements, space is not the constraint.

Then again, most city-based pollution comes from automobiles. Consumer level actions like Roof-installed solar panels, battery vehicles can go a long way in reducing pollution in cities. Isn't that a desirable action? If someone denies it by saying that CO2 isn't that bad, which side should I err towards?

right, one almost never hears anyone talk about sulphur or nitrogen dioxide, yet they're directly bad for the health, and possibly have a detrimental effect on the overall ecosystem also (don't know enough about the consequential effects)



I don't totally agree with this

The storage technology for renewable energy is both required and immature (it's very immature considering how old the energy storage field is), if significant proportions of energy production is to be changed to renewable sources. It's the ideal, but until then, renewables are best used to smooth out peaks in demand, as that supply profile matches what the tech is actually capable of in the actual real world



the argument that CO₂ emissions even matter is similarly thin on the ground (as is the proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere )


the foundation of the whole anthropogenic warming argument was rocked this week: the climate sceintist that produced the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature rises over C20th lost his court case.


how did he lose his case? he refused to present his methodology that produced the hockey stick graph in the court room. think about that; the methodology that produced the famous hockey stick trend graph was not publicly available then, and it's still not available now

what sort of scientist does that? loses a court case, a civil libel case which he instigated, by refusing to present the evidence that proves his case? what sort of science cannot withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom?

I didn't refer to the use of solar panels, but the replacement of productive arable land with solar farms. We also have a CO2 drought at the moment, and this is affecting the plant life, and causing global warming for reasons that I explained above. We need to reverse desetification, and turn the current barren deserts into productive land.

One other point - algae is responsive for the creation of more oxygen than trees, and we are destroying algae as well as trees.

Countries such as China are building more coal fired plants to give themselves an economic advantage, and the western world is transferring manufacturing to them.  Wouldn't it be better if we used well managed coal fired generators to preserve our manufacturing, rather than allowing the coal burning to be performed in countries that have less interest in the welfare of the world.

As I stated in my opening post, it is difficult to know which reports one should believe. What I do know is that most of them seem to contradict basic scientific facts. Some people even believe that fractional reserve banking is beneficial to the consumer, and that high blood pressure is a disease, and not a healthy biological response.

Thanks for the support. I am usually reluctant in explaining obvious things. You did.


That's correct. But when I started discussing about those I didn't compare with existing coal based industry. I compared with "0".

---

And to add something to the discussion, I've read these days an interesting theory on Amazon wildfires hysteria.
You know, many tell that Amazon is Earth lungs and from here many wrong numbers and things were spread.
However, the article tells that


I don't know if this is correct, but it's an interesting point to be in consideration when one supports burning fossil fuels: we are reversing pretty fast some processes Earth has done in millions of years so the consequences may be ... unexpected. (In this case we "consume" the extra "stash" of free oxygen).

They aren't. Even with the best managed power plants, the CO2 emission levels range from 750 gm to 1000 gm per KWh. Coal-fired generators are going to be hard to replace simply because of the night-time availability issue with Solar power. Even then, it is prudent to use Solar power when you can.
Solar power generation effectively has zero emissions while Coal fired plants have to deal with SOX, NOX, PM too. This may not be a huge issue in developed countries but in developing countries like China and India, steps have just been started to manage these other emissions. Hence, Parallel targets of solar energy are desirable.

It is hard to say this to you JetCash, but that sounds pretty stupid. How is installation of Solar Panels on barren desert stretches going to deprive plants or trees of sunlight? 
For all practical purposes, Sunlight is a renewable source of energy as it is always being replenished unlike Coal/ Petroleum.

---

The argument about "Manufacturing of Solar Panels and Batteries" adding to CO2 emissions is on thin ground too. The manufacturing process for Power plant equipment isn't too environment-friendly either. I have not seen a comparative study of the two but if you simply consider the diversity of equipment needed to construct a Coal-fired thermal plant to a Solar plant, there is no comparison. Beginning from Humungous concrete foundations to the Millions of tonnes of support structure and Steel-alloys , the manufacturing process for Thermal plants is no less CO2 heavy.

About Rare earth, I agree that we wouldn't have Central Africa so fucked up if it wasn't for rare earth materials. But then, we wouldn't have the Gulf wars and Middle-East wouldn't be constantly on boil if it wasn't for Petroleum.

If you can't decipher reality from fiction, you're a fool.

The shit you come up, I really do wonder what you smoke.

Sunlight is an energy source, and energy cannot be destroyed. This means that the energy used to create electricity is being denied to some other natural process. One needs to determine if that natural process is less beneficial than the electricity we consume. Certainly building a solar farm on arable lane is depriving us of a food source. To compensate for this the farmed land has to be "fed" with fertilisers, and these don't contain the minerals that are essential for healthy humans. To compensate for that, Big Pharma creates artificial products that have serious side effects, and further diminish the health of "civilised" societies. It is obvious that it is a carefully constructed project with the primary aim of increasing the wealth of the rich elite. and damaging the health and finances of the bulk of civilisation.

I agree that batteries, and the misuse of rare earths are another factor to be considered. So is the damage caused by the war machines of the international bullies and slave masters.

Sunlight is "wasted", whether we use it or not. Same quantity, no matter what.
If the solar panels are not over plants (they can be on the buildings, they can be instead of windows, they can be in deserts) the "damage" of depriving other entities is insignificant (to not say 0).
I think that the problems with solar panels are different: their production may not be as environment friendly as many would like to think (and please also add here the batteries too that may be attached to the solar panels) and their lifespan may not be great (I don't know what protection against hailstone they have, for example).

Of course increasing carbon and CO2 in the atmosphere helps plants. It reducing the need for plants to open their pores whilst they "gasp for breath". Opening their pores increases the loss of water, which is released into the atmosphere. Water vapour is the single largest contribution to global warming in the composition of our atmosphere. The pro-warming activists conveniently leave it out of their statistics though. Also they are great at using misleading images. Do you remember all those smoke laden exhaust fumes from coal burning electricity generation plants? That is carbon, not carbon dioxide. Carbon is an essential element for the creation and maintenance of life on Earth.

We need more well managed coal fired generators, with sophisticated management of emissions. They are far more environmentally friendly than some of the so-called renewable sources. Sunlight is not renewable, it is generated constantly. If you divert it to electricity generation, then you are depriving some other entity, such as plant or tree growth.

who is "China"? what is that even supposed to mean? Chinese wildlife? Chinese ghosts of future past? Every single man, woman, child, transexual and apparition in China?



sounds like a manipulative ploy by the alarmist/pay-government-for-the-right-to-breathe lobby

there's plenty of questionable science suporting the anthropogenic climate change argument, but measurements of proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere isn't part of that. It's increased over the last ~ 200 years from 0.03% to 0.04%, i.e. not much


still, a 0.01% increase has another observable and non-controversial effect; higher amounts of CO₂ help plants to handle more adverse conditions. This means the exact opposite of desertification increase is happening, as the margins of desert areas literally are adverse habitats for plants to grow in. Thus, the margins of desert areas are pushed into the desert by increased CO₂, not expanded, and the deserts shrink


you know what you could do, JC? instead of "believing" this or that, you could just use logic

You can be sure that there isn't much of a chance for that. Research publication and its control is one of the most profitable businesses in the world. I think you will appreciate this piece from "The Guardian" (which I guess has a reputation of its own).
Business of scientific publishing bad for Science? Source: The Guardian

These days there is a lack of diversification of opinions we hold as individuals. In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, he says that the ability to hold two conflicting beliefs; Cognitive Dissonance has lead to much of innovation and progress in Human society. In today's age of targeted ads and AI recommendations from Google and Youtube, we are fed our own world-views on loop, strengthening these stupid lines of Left-Liberal vs Conservatives further and further. As people on both sides keep losing the ability to hold flexible, conflicting beliefs, the possibility of arriving at a compromise in order to target the real problems keeps getting distant.

Maybe, As individuals, we all need to decide on the basis of common sense rather than Scientific data. Like if I have an option to utilize a non-carbon source of energy which is cheaper too, Why shouldn't I? Why should I go into the debate of Climate-change alarmists versus Carbon 'Faminists'.

When it comes to bitcoin; anything that is obscure, hard to understand and brings people together in its pursuit has always been valuable. So regulations or not, it should remain valuable. So Stack'em Sats!

The money is in the "commercial interests" and there's much higher chance to hear only that part of the story.
And you somehow missed the governmental interest. China is using massively coal based industries, and actually USA too. It can be one of the reasons for the loudness of the voices telling that global warming is a hoax.

The climate change is a reality. How much is provoked by humans, it's debatable. It would be good if the big countries would do something about it, for real. Not the current way, where they convince population be careful with electricity, water, not throwing the oil into the sink and so on, when industries burn coal for goods nobody may be buying, when ships and industries throwing tons after tons of petrol and oils into the waters and so on.

There are multiple possible causes for the desertification, not only global warming and carbon. It may be some sort of "shifting" of the climate related "lines". And the scientist are not gods, their understanding on all this is still limited and sometimes their funding is also limited because there's no commercial interest. It's quite a sad circle.

There really is not much chance of that happening. All forms of mass media has for a long time been used as a tool to direct the masses along a certain path, with the different sources leading to different paths, with everyone pushing their own narrative.

I also think that such factual reports would be unsettling to a lot of people, civilization is sort of a house in the clouds, and any harsh reality could dispel it.

The western world says that the world is warming, and we will all be drowned or cooked in a few years. China says we are about to enter a period of global cooling, and we should prepare for that. China has been forecasting climate change for thousands of years, so we should at least consider their opinion.

The fundamentals of Bitcoin are really strong in the opinion of many people, but others seem to think that it has fallen out of favour, and new regulations will cause a continuance of a drop in its value. I think they may both be right, with a short term drop in price, followed by a new bull run.

The climate change natzis are trying to force through legislation to reduce carbon emissions, but many research scientists seem to be of the opinion that we are in a period of carbon famine, and this is causing desertification.

Statins have been the most profitable of all the manufactured pharmaceuticals, but the side effects seem to far outweigh the very limited benefit to health. All of the raw research data is held by Oxford University, and they are refuse to allow it to be released for public evaluation.

Don't even start me on fractional reserve banking, non-government creation of fiat currencies, derivatives and all the other banking schemes.

What we really need is the release of factual and well researched objective reports, that are not promoting commercial interests, but there isn't much chance of that is there?