Climate Change & Why I Am Such A Cynical Bastard

[blk02edge]

So, I'm a contrarian on this, but not the usual kind. I don't see climate change as some kind of left-wing conspiracy. In fact I can't figure out why it's not considered a right-wing movement. That's because, climate change, which is becoming increasingly real to people around the world, is creating one of the biggest business opportunities to come along since the industrial revolution. News reports this week from India and China make it crystal clear that pollution there is a serious problem - worse than LA in the 60's - and they'll have to spend what it takes to fix it. It's going to take an enormous (mostly private sector profit-seeking) investment to move the entire energy economy to a zero-carbon future over the next fifty years or so. It was going to happen eventually anyway - the world's fossil fuel supply isn't infinite in any case, so it's always been just a matter of when.

The question is - who's going to benefit the most - who gets the double win of a clean environment and the world-leading industry that achieved it? Historically, the USA has benefited enormously from taking the lead in other industrial upheavals. If you think about the massive investment made by the US taxpayers in digital communications - military applications mostly - and the way that those investments have created a global leadership position in cell phones and mobile devices, it's hard to argue that the investment was wasted. Yet, here we are with folks arguing that the US should ease up on its climate change agenda and effectively stand aside on new energy and other low-carbon technologies and let other countries take charge and lead the way. It's baffling that Americans seem to want the world leading companies and the jobs that go with them to be built outside the USA.

It makes no sense to me.

Literally nobody is against that, but if it were that easy to just change then we would. There are countless people already on that race and eventually we will evolve to more and more clean energy. The real issue is the attempt to force oil production to stop NOW because the earth will die in 12 years.

Like the whole pipline fiasco we have here in BC. The left is simply using it as a scare tactic for votes.

 

[AssPikle]

Literally nobody is against that, but if it were that easy to just change then we would. There are countless people already on that race and eventually we will evolve to more and more clean energy. The real issue is the atempt to force oil production to stop NOW because the earth will die in 12 years.

True story.

 

[Coiled03]

Just because you can't change the actions of a company in China, doesn't mean you can't do your share here.

I already do my share. I'm waiting for them to do their share....of even 1/10th of it.

 

[Tob]

Anyone who saw the smog in LA 30 years ago would disagree.

Thirty years ago it was a fart in the wind.

A typical day in LA in 1958...

 

[Tob]

Anyone who saw the smog in LA 30 years ago would disagree.

Thirty years ago it was a fart in the wind.

A typical day in LA in 1958...

 

[Kevins89notch]

I already do my share. I'm waiting for them to do their share....of even 1/10th of it.

Well 2 issues.

1, if you want to be rude, they are poor and stupid. Do you think they care?

2, if Coke is making profits off them, and Coke was recently found to be the largest plastic polluter of the oceans, one could say Coke has some responsibility to help in the clean up.

Nonetheless, there are options. Here's one amazing option...

 

[97WHITEVENOM]

Models rely heavily on input parameters. So, how accurate are our input parameters? CONUS: temp accuracy is pretty legit, but still not 100% accurate (besides accuracy, we can talk about resolution too with less than 200 grid points for the entire CONUS). How accurate are the world wide temp inputs at PRESENT? (They're not accurate). This goes in to how and where the sensors are set up - there are VERY strict regulations for how sensors must be set up, and even in the US, the standards aren't met 100% of the time. And that's insitu obs over land, let alone the utter lack of insitu obs over water.

Climate models CANNOT resolve clouds (well) and as @weather man will tell you, cloud coverage severely affects incoming/outgoing radiation which severely affects temp. Even our weather models (much finer resolution, much shorter time steps) can't resolve precipitating clouds that well, let alone "fair weather" cumulus clouds.

Climate models CANNOT resolve precip (well), it's too variable, too small of a scale. Precip drastically affects temp at all atmospheric heights.

Climate models CANNOT resolve severe impact events (well) like volcanic eruptions (just one example)

Climate models rely heavily on (heat) fluxes, especially over water. In order to accurately resolve those fluxes within models we have to be able to MEASURE and then input those measurements in to the models on a scale of 5W/m^2 AT THE VERY LEAST (with the most "accurate" models requiring accuracy on the scale of 0.1W/m^2) and the best our measuring tools can do right now is a maximum of ~10-15W/m^2 (AT LEAST an order of magnitude off).

Solar radiation is not constant and the changes are not accounted for in climate models (well)

Climate models cannot resolve differences in vegetation and how that vegetation will change over time (well).

Climate models cannot resolve differences in populations (well), how they affect climate, and how those populations will change.

Climate models are just now starting to consider atmospheric chemistry. (By now I mean within the last few years).

Climate models are now starting to consider ice formations (better than they ever did before)

Besides horizontal resolution and time steps of the models, we can talk about if the models are coupled or not with the ocean (they're not coupled well). We can also talk about vertical resolution of the models (vertical res of climate models = shit). One of the reasons why the euro wx model is so much better than the American (gfs) is because there are twice as many vertical levels accounted for (~60 vs ~120) where climate models split the atmosphere in to way less layers.

To give you guys an idea of how important initial conditions are I have included some images that show A VERY VERY SIMPLE model I ran over less than 1min, (less than 1000 time steps) with initial conditions of ONE VARIABLE varying by 0.001

I can go on and on, but to keep it simple, stupid, short: anyone that says climate models are true is more than likely trying to sell you something. Until models can resolve every single particle within the atmosphere (which will NEVER happen in our lifetime), they will be inaccurate. Too many variables, too big of a data field, too much misunderstood or simply unknown phenomena, and too many time steps.

FINAL DISCLAIMER
CLIMATE HAS CHANGED AND WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE FOREVER, TO THINK THAT WE CAN MODEL AND FORECAST, LET ALONE CONTROL IT IS BEYOND NAIVE. I am not a climate change "denier" but I am saying that the science is nowhere near being able to tell us what our climate is going to be like on a decadal or centurial time scale


View attachment 1608098View attachment 1608099View attachment 1608100

Sent from my SM-N975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Edward Lorenz would be very proud!

 

[Coiled03]

Well 2 issues.

1, if you want to be rude, they are poor and stupid. Do you think they care?

2, if Coke is making profits off them, and Coke was recently found to be the largest plastic polluter of the oceans, one could say Coke has some responsibility to help in the clean up.

Nonetheless, there are options. Here's one amazing option...

1) They don't care? Then what are we talking about? Oh, I see. Maybe if we care really, really hard, with sprinkles on top, we can make their pollution disappear, is that it? Why do you insist on us living by a different set of rules than the rest of the world when it's a global problem?

2) Coke is not the largest pollluter of the oceans. I have no clue where you got that, but it's wrong. If you believe they're dumping their plastic waste directly in the ocean like these dumpster fire countries, I have some beach front property in Nevada to sell you.

 

[Kevins89notch]

2) Coke is not the largest pollluter of the oceans. I have no clue where you got that, but it's wrong. If you believe they're dumping their plastic waste directly in the ocean like these dumpster fire countries, I have some beach front property in Nevada to sell you.

Coca-Cola Named The World’s Most Polluting Brand in Plastic Waste Audit

 

[gimmie11s]

Coca-Cola Named The World’s Most Polluting Brand in Plastic Waste Audit

Right... so "break free from plastic" received their lobby check 2 weeks late from Coke it appears, yet Pepsi paid on time.

GTFO with that crap.

 

[Kevins89notch]

Right... so "break free from plastic" received their lobby check 2 weeks late from Coke it appears, yet Pepsi paid on time.

GTFO with that crap.

You literally, in no way, can argue that you think that there are more pepsi bottles floating in the ocean compared to Coke.

 

[me32]

can we be less asshole-ish? Yes.

That's my point. If a grocery store wants to charge you $0.20 a plastic bag as a means to push you to buy a reusbale cloth bag...that's good.

Its not the grocery stores that want to charge you. Its the state. The grocery stores dont get to keep that money.

 

[gimmie11s]

You literally, in no way, can argue that you think that there are more pepsi bottles floating in the ocean compared to Coke.

You completely missed the point of my post. But I expected that so....

Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Coiled03]

Coca-Cola Named The World’s Most Polluting Brand in Plastic Waste Audit

Yeah, I don't really care if there's an article about it. It's virtually impossible for that to be true. You believe what you want.

Besides, all that article really proves is that Coke sells more. As a result, there will be more of their bottles around. It doesn't prove anything about the company as corporate stewards of the environment. You were implying they were literally dumping their plastic waste into the ocean, which isn't true. If that were the case, it would be the lead on every news station in the country. CORPORATIONS BAD! Blah, blah, blah...

 

[BOOGIE MAN]

You literally, in no way, can argue that you think that there are more pepsi bottles floating in the ocean compared to Coke.

View attachment 1608364

This chart tells me that coke isn't the biggest ocean plastic contributor but the customers of coke are. That's different than what it sounds like you're arguing

Sent from my SM-N975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Kevins89notch]

This chart tells me that coke isn't the biggest ocean plastic contributor but the customers of coke are. That's different than what it sounds like you're arguing

Sent from my SM-N975U using the svtperformance.com mobile app

...and my argument is Coke is profiting off those folks who are littering, and thus Coke should investing in methods to clean up the problem, such as the linked video above.


...but we all know how corporate responsibility goes.

 

[DAVESVT2000]

Since when is it a company’s responsibility to dictate how a customer uses or disposes of its product after the customer has purchased it ?

 

[AssPikle]

Here's an idea. How about we find out why people are littering instead of who to charge with the cleanup. If people find it difficult to dispose of things correctly, then make it easier. How about we make all women's bras capable of collecting plastic. This way we will all be motivated to go up to the titties and drop off our waste. The women, will literally all be walking recycling bins. Problem solved. Again, titties.

 

[03cobra#694]

Unreal sometimes here.

 

[Weather Man]

Unreal sometimes here.

LOL