Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW 146 Replies latest social current

• 

  joey jojo

  Disillusioned JW:
  I notice that you made the claim of "By the way, one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture." I am not convinced that one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture.

  Im glad you noticed this too. Of course its a false claim. The guy quoted was taken completely out of context and Vidqun got this quote from his favourite source of scientific facts - Facebook memes.

  Heres the whole story:

  https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/
  

  For anyone who cant be bothered clicking on the URL:

  On his blog Mr Homer-Dixon writes: “The poster is fraudulent. I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless.”

  The full quote from the book is:

  “The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

  So Mr Hughes was saying only that placing windmills in bad places may mean they don’t generate enough energy to “pay back” the energy it cost to produce them, not that all turbines will fail to do so.

  Mr Homer-Dixon adds, “it would be pointless to put wind turbines in poor locations”.
• 

  Vidqun

  Disillusioned JW,

  Arctic/Antarctic, my mistake.

  https://electroverse.net/jan-2020s-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-on-par-with-1979-90-avg/

  Well, we have two narratives here. Somebody's lying. Ask yourself, what would be the motives? Honest scientists are interested in the truth. The other group will be interested in $$$, control and depopulation with their Net Zero targets. We have a disruption in energy supplies right now. let's see how it turns out for England, Europe and the rest of the world, starting with Ukraine? With winter coming along. It's not going to be pleasant, and all for a great lie.
• 

  Vidqun

  Let's review some of the lies:

  The scariest scenario of the global warming doomsayers has been the idea that the melting Arctic ice cap would put coastal cities underwater.

  For example:

  ‘Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice,’ reported the BBC back in 2007. ‘Their latest modelling indicates that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.’

  Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Department of Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2013.

  Maslowski added that his prediction was on the conservative side, too: “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007. So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

  There are plenty more such forecasts:

  ‘Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice,’ reported the BBC back in 2007. ‘Their latest modelling indicates that northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.’

  And:
  

  In 2010, Mark Sereezer, the newly appointed senior scientist at the US government’s Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. was famously quoted as saying: “the Arctic is screaming.”

  But, as with countless other prophesies of climate doom, they were alarmist BS.
  
• 

  joey jojo

  Hi again Vid,

  The only reason I comment on your posts, is for anyone that upvotes it, or for the casual reader that accepts what you have posted without checking.

  So in this latest post you talk about Arctic ice melting and flooding the world. No expert believes this to be case.

  Why?

  Because Arctic ice melting will have zero effect on ocean levels. It is like an ice cube in a drink, as it melts, it doesnt magically add more water to the glass. The total amount of water is already in the glass, except some of it is in frozen form.

  You posted a link from NASA in another post, I suppose that means you trust NASA as a source. Here is another post showing how the Arctic Ice is indeed shrinking. It even has a slider so you can see it for yourself.

  https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaway%3A,covered%20in%20ice)%20each%20September.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Thanks joey jojo for your post about the amount of energy used to make wind turbines verses the amount of energy the wind turbines produce. I notice that your source (at https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ ) also says the following.

  'A 2014 study which looked at the same issue found that 2-megawatt wind turbines installed in Northwest USA paid for themselves in 5-6 months.

  A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.'

  joey jojo, I am puzzled by something you said about melting ice. I agree that melting ice (such as in a glass) doesn't increase increase the total amount of water, but it does increase the amount of liquid water (such as in a glass). It seems to me that if the amount of liquid water in the oceans increased (due to melting of Arctic ice, the liquid water in oceans would rise and sea levels would rise and thus some land areas (including islands) would become covered with water. Why do you think they wouldn't become covered with water? Is it because the weight of the water ice upon the liquid ice is pushing up the liquid water, and does that mean thus if the ice becomes entirely melted the height of the liquid water will still be at the same level? Likewise it seems to me in the case of liquid water in a glass with ice cubes floating on the water, that as the ice melted the level of liquid water in the glass would rise. In your view am I wrong about that? Maybe since ice has more volume and less density than liquid water means that liquid water levels don't rise when ice melts. I searched online to find a scientific answer to the questions (I also thought of doing my own experiment).

  At https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/melting-ice-rising-seas I found instructions on doing an experiment in our homes. I also found the following conclusion regarding the effects of melting ice cubes (to simulate melting sea ice). "What about the melting sea ice? Ice is less dense than water, which is why it floats. When ice melts, the resulting water is denser, so a particular mass of what had been solid ice will have a smaller volume when it becomes liquid water. This change in volume exactly offsets the small percentage of ice that is above the water's surface. Therefore, melting sea ice does not affect sea levels." [See also https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm and https://smithplanet.com/stuff/iceandwater.htm .] This confirms what you said about melting ice in a glass of water. The same web page ( https://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/melting-ice-rising-seas ) does say something else though which is very important to the topic of the effect of increases of global temperatures upon sea levels. It says the following.

  "Melting ice isn’t the only culprit for sea level rise. Other factors in the environment also cause sea level rise, including the effects of heating liquid water. When liquid water is warmed up, it increases in volume (takes up more space), while the actual amount of water (number of water molecules) stays the same. This is called thermal expansion, and it’s causing sea levels to rise as sea water is warmed by higher air temperature and expands, taking up more space. Investigate the effects of thermal expansion yourself by trying the Swelling Seas Science Snack."
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vidqun I notice you said that "The other group will be interested in $$$, control and depopulation with their Net Zero targets." But what about you? Do you have a vested financial interest in the fossil fuel industry? I don't know if that is case, but I ask the question since you say people should follow the money and that people should look to see if there are vested interests. Maybe you own a great many shares of stock of oil companies and coal mining companies and/or other fossil fuel companies. Maybe you are a coal miner. I don't know.

  Regarding idea of a goal of "depopulation with their Net Zero targets" I think the following. I think the idea that there are people [including Bill Gates] who aim to depopulate (or drastically reduce the population) in order to achieve their Net Zero targets is a totally bogus idea. I see no evidence in support of that idea at all. But why are some people promoting the idea? Are they entirely doing so in order make money from it (or to prevent loosing money in investments in fossil fuel companies)? Are they doing so to make money from in YouTube videos or on various websites (such as from advertising) by increasing the number of visits to their web pages (or by increasing click views). Or, do they perhaps get a thrill from scaring people and are doing just for fun, without believing in it themselves?

  --------

  Here is a further thought, though a minor one.

  Vidqun, in your post I notice that right after your words of "There are plenty more such forecasts:" you repeat precisely an example you mentioned earlier in your post. As a result you only provided one additional example of such forecasts instead of two more examples of such.

  Here is another thought:
  

  Regarding the example (of the forecast of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski) reported by the BBC back in 2007 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm ), so what that the extreme forecast by one scientist of "northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years" following the year 2007 didn't become fulfilled? That was just an idea of only one climate scientist, not the consensus idea of numerous climate scientists, nor is it the average of the various forecasts of climate scientists. Within each scientific field there are a range of ideas. I weigh the various ideas which I come across rather than jump to concluding that one particular idea of one scientist is correct. The same BBC article mentions a less extreme forecast (though still one which says there is a problem). It says that Professor Peter Wadham, who despite thinking that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski is "is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice", nonetheless says "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040. ... My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

  The article then presents the view of another climate scientist, when the article says the following. 'And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."

  ----------

  Vidqun, in one your posts you said the following. "Well, we have two narratives here. Somebody's lying. Ask yourself, what would be the motives? Honest scientists are interested in the truth." There is another narrative besides lying and telling the truth, namely that of being sincere while making an incorrect statement/conclusion. When someone says something which is false, it is not necessarily a lie. A lie is specific kind of false statement, namely one which was intended to deceive. Every talking human alive makes mistakes and makes false statements (due to errors), even those of us who are very sincere and not liars.

  Regarding the link you provided of https://electroverse.net/jan-2020s-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-on-par-with-1979-90-avg/ when I click on it on my home computer system (which I admit is very old) the web page which loads up says only "Invalid Request". The same notice appears even when I go to " https://electroverse.net/ " itself. Maybe the problem is with my home computer system; I don't know.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vidqquin, do you really think the vast majority of climate scientists will make huge financial profits by humankind switching to Net Zero emissions? I strongly doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists will. I strongly doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists are heavily financially invested in green energy technology, despite me believing that they likely think such technology is vital to solving the climate change global warming problem (by global warming I mean a trend in the warming of the average global temperature). Like most working people they likely have the bulk of their investments in multiple topics of stocks and likely with the bulk of it in diversified index mutual funds (such as in 401K accounts) and/or diversified index ETFs. Furthermore, they are probably too busy doing their scientific work to be financial tycoons.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  People, please note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline says the following. "Arctic sea ice decline has occurred in recent decades due to the effects of climate change on oceans, with declines in sea ice area, extent, and volume. Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been melting more in summer than it refreezes in the winter. Global warming, caused by greenhouse gas forcing is responsible for the decline in Arctic sea ice. The decline of sea ice in the Arctic has been accelerating during the early twenty‐first century, with a decline rate of minus 4.7% per decade (it has declined over 50% since the first satellite records).[1][2][3] It is also thought that summertime sea ice will cease to exist sometime during the 21st century.[4] ... Sea ice area means the total area covered by ice, whereas sea ice extent is the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice, while the volume is the total amount of ice in the Arctic.[5] "
• 

  joey jojo

  Disillusioned.

  Try it for yourself- put ice cubes in a glass and fill it to the brim with water. As the ice melts it wont spill over the top because the volume of the glass is already filled with water. No more water is being added.

  I didnt have time to write more about the polar caps melting but there is a big difference between Arctic ice and Antarctic ice.

  Arctic ice is sitting on the water like an ice cube and as it melts in doesnt add any more volume to the oceans. Antarctic ice is sitting out of the water on land in giant sheets. As it melts, it will add to the volume of water in the oceans and contribute to sea level rise.

  From what Ive read though, another factor is thermal expansion of the ocean. As temperatures rise, the volume of the oceans expands. So, melting glacier ice + thermal expansion = sea level rise.
• 

  Vidqun

  Joey jojo,

  I am with you on the rising of the sea. Melting ice will not influence sea levels. If you read carefully, you'll see I was referring to past predictions that have failed. Sea levels are in actual fact rising a millimetre or so per year in the northern hemisphere and not at all in the southern hemisphere.

  Disillusioned JW,

  Let me begin at the beginning. I wish I had vested interests in the oil industry, then today I would have been able to retire in style. Well, seeing that we are busy with motive, let's carry on from there. Did you know oil is not a "fossil fuel"? Oil is the second most plentiful liquid on earth today (after water). Here's a very informative video on the subject to give some perspective:

  https://twitter.com/TedPete92938863/status/1572038007980716033?s=20&t=V7PCJdlWtnVkZcTIAp-c_w

  That Bill Gates wants to depopulate the planet is a fact. He said so himself. His Foundation was once called the "Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population Control."

  What would transport mean in a Net Zero environment? Electric vehicles? Let's look at the sustainability of electric cars. The French government bought all these electric cars for their government departments. When it was time to replace the batteries they realized it was too expensive. No landfill would except them, so there they are.

  
  

  To make a typical electric car battery you need:

  25 pounds of lithium

  60 pounds of nickel

  44 pounds of manganese

  30 pounds of cobalt

  200 pounds of copper

  400 pounds of aluminum, steel and plastic

  Very expensive. Not sustainable at all.

  Let's go to "the narrative." As a scientist, if you do not follow a certain narrative, will you really think the person will receive grants or be appointed to work at a prestigious university? Two additional examples come to mind. If you are a creationist (anti-evolution) or believe that the book of Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonians you will struggle to get work in most universities or seminaries? If you are against m-RNA gene therappy will you be able to find work at a university hospital? All these are heavily sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, especially Pfizer.

  Back to sea ice. As you might have noticed from the graphs, there's certain fluctuations. The sea ice deteriorated for the last few decades, but is now picking up again. Nothing out of the ordinary. So what happened? Nature is following its course irrespective of man's activities. CO2 has nothing to do with it.