Ocean News

I am primarily interested in scientific questions regarding AGW. This is not a scientific question, rather it is a he-said-she-said question. There is likely far more to the story than what Seitz describes. But neither of us has reliable, impartial information as to what did or did not happen 25 years ago. So, yes, I am quite willing to "blow it off".

 

I'm not so sure the article says what you think it does.

The study by Bjorn Stevens used a different set of parameters than the IPCC researchers did, and Stevens's study came up with different numbers that indicated AGW was not so dire as the IPCC claimed. That was published in the peer reviewed scientific journal, Journal of Climate. Other scientists disagreed with his singular study, saying different methods can give different results.

Nic Lewis reviewed it and posted a blog post in the Climate Audit, a prominent climate change denial site. I don't believe they do peer reviews, at least by scientists.

Using the lower numbers of Steven's findings, Lewis raised doubts which climate deniers and right wing publications world wide jumped on as proof that AGW is not a major threat.

"Soon after, he (Stevens) took the unusual step, for a climate scientist, of issuing a press release to correct the misconceptions. Lewis had used an extremely rudimentary, some would even say flawed, climate model to derive his estimates, Stevens said.

"Narrowing climate sensitivity is challenging since the measure includes, and therefore compounds, the uncertainty inherent in aerosols, clouds and other phenomena. Different methods can give different results."

"Stevens said his study is something to be mulled over, but it does not call into question man-made global warming.

"I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously," he wrote, "even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."

What you think the article said "Apparently, Scientific America and other science reporting media, misinterpreted/misunderstood or distorted some of the science around climate." is not what it said, which you would see if you had read the thing.

I might quit paying much attention to what you post also. You seem to acquire your information from the same discredited sites and people as Yobarnacle, jump to quick conclusions with little actual evidence and kind of post a lot of words that never actually say much.

I know Yobarnacle doesn't care much for credentials, or awards, but in this article you posted the skeptic denier Lewis is an ex financier, the Stevens science guy has a doctorate in atmospheric science. It's one way I check for the authenticity of anything posted here, if possible I find out the credentials of the authors. If they're bought and paid for by right wing, corporate money, fudging the numbers, I tend to be skeptical.

 

The World Isn’t Ready for Peak Oil

For many countries oil production is a main, if not the only, source of government funding. And for many of those countries the price of production is currently higher than today's oil prices.

[published June 28, 2020 when OPEC basket price was $37.33 price per barrel (ppb)]
[Today's (July 25, 20202) OPEC basket price is $44.62 ppb]

Iraq -- 30% of economy, 90% of gov't budget -- needs $58 ppb to meet wage and pension obligations

Nigeria -- 50% of gov't budget, 90% of foreign-exchange earnings -- costs more to produce than can sell for

Algeria -- 40% of budget -- $109 ppb to break even

Libya -- 60% of GDP --$100 ppb to break even

Perhaps most disconcerting is the likelihood of a new international migration crisis. The combination of weakened governments, broad economic calamity, and surging violence is a recipe for severe dislocation, which could create spillover effects across borders.....

That work should begin with a rejection of the siloed approach we take to our global policy, in which climate negotiators, national-security experts, and business leaders are rarely in the same room, across the same table from one another. At the next climate summit, we should make room for more seats, so that the accord includes an international coalition of governments and global institutions working to secure capital for a developing world that is currently hemorrhaging cash. We will need to invest in these nations, and help their economies and governments transition away from their dependence on petroleum. And, ultimately, the United States will need to reclaim its place on the global stage—as the leader of that coalition, rather than its leading antagonist.​

 

Playing world sugar daddy and world policeman has impoverished USA. Our infrastructure is in shambles. It's time Allas shrugs the burden from our shoulders, tired of carrying the world.
Rebuild ourselves for a nice change.

As the flight attendant instructs, when the oxygen masks deploy, put on your own first before attempting to assist others. You can not help if you yourself are incapacitated.

 

Yes, for once I agree with you. Our infrastructure is in shambles. The world's policeman part I might temper with accusations of police brutality.

Aside from that in IN's post there was this...

"This is why the Obama administration, in which I served as the special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, pursued climate goals in Paris at the same time that it was investing in Iraq’s oil and gas infrastructure. We understood that a transition to a green economy couldn’t happen at the flip of a switch, especially in countries so economically dependent on fossil fuels.'

It was just a few pages ago you were saying the same thing, that fossil fuels were the only way for third world and other countries to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Which I also agree with.

Maybe if I call you Yobama, you won't seem so....difficult.

 

The collapse of oil leaves third and other worlds in disarray with spiraling collapses in government funding and economies fueling tensions, increasing insurgencies. "Perhaps most disconcerting is the likelihood of a new international migration crisis. The combination of weakened governments, broad economic calamity, and surging violence is a recipe for severe dislocation, which could create spillover effects across borders. The most recent major migration crisis, which began with the Syrian civil war in 2011, helped give rise to ISIS while at the same time igniting a wave of ethno-nationalism in the West that threatens global institutions and alliances today."

The same result from AGW and shifting climates, now add them together, throw in some more pandemic and see what happens.

 

and see what happens.?
Humans will rise to the occasion.
As Churchill said to England while being blitzed with Nazi buzz bombs.
"Our finest hour!"

 

Well, quoting politicians, Lyndon B. Johnson about J. Edgar Hoover . . .

‘‘ I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in ’’

From this analogy I'll guess everyone on the thread is happy to have all others aboard . .

 

Churchill also said (probably apocryphally):

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities."​

 

Right is subjective, the British have the wheel on the right side, but in a lot of the rest of the world people say, left is the right side.

 

During WW1, the Brits complained about the yanks as, "over paid, over sexed, and over here".

 

I prefer dexter, means right handed,. Dexterous, meaning nimble fingered, skillful, comes from dexter. Ambidextrous is using either hand as if having two right hands. Sinister, means the left. Appropriate.

 

Blessed is the peacemaker, Angel

 

So, our finest hour will be when we turn our backs on the rest of the world and leave them to their own problems, a large portion of which we caused? How noble.

 

I thought it was, "Blessed are the cheese makers."

-Will (Dragonfly)