How would this same pie chart presentation look with data that is more current than year 2020?
I don't know. I think it would still look very similar. But I'd have to do more to try and find such an image, online.
Rinse, can you do more digging into this chart? I've looked this up in the past, and remember discovering that this was somewhat of a "chart crime" sort of situation. If I remember correctly, the chart was wildly misrepresented because it associated pollution in other countries to the United States if the pollution being created was for products and services meant for export in the United States. For example... the coal plant in Mexico that provides power to the lower portion of California (as an example). So it was wildly misleading...
the deluded deplorable's fail to understand a real threat to our world while claiming their skydaddy will be back soon soon soon and kill most people on earth soon but never exactly dated but soon soon soon has always been soon for the last near 2000 years
your BS and buybull thumping are getting old now and he who never was will NOT be back as we all get one spin on the wheel of the world belief in skydaddy and kid gains you nothing and limits you in many ways
Originally posted by cliffw: What nature produces is pollution?
There are natural processes that enrich the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
Human exploitation of coal, oil and gas for energy also enriches the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, but these are not fundamentally natural processes. They are only "natural" to the extent that humans have evolved to learn how to do this.
Without the agency of humans, the carbon that is locked within coal, oil and gas would not be transformed into atmospheric carbon dioxide. It would remain locked within the world's natural deposits of coal, oil and gas—sequestered from the atmosphere "forever" in practical terms.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-14-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... the chart was wildly misrepresented because it associated pollution
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Pollution ?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... carbon dioxide emissions.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: What nature produces is pollution ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There are natural processes that enrich the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
Human exploitation of coal, oil and gas for energy also enriches the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, but these are not fundamentally natural processes. They are only "natural" to the extent that humans have evolved to learn how to do this.
Without the agency of humans, the carbon that is locked within coal, oil and gas would not be transformed into atmospheric carbon dioxide. It would remain locked within the world's natural deposits of coal, oil and gas—sequestered from the atmosphere "forever" in practical terms.
Without the agency of humans it wouldn't matter. Just like now.
Sky News' Tom Heap is offering a heap of optimism on YouTube about the possibility of China reigning in its planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. https://youtu.be/C1ynGNFeOrE?t=365
Originally posted by rinselberg: Sky News' Tom Heap is offering a heap of optimism on YouTube about the possibility of China reigning in its planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. https://youtu.be/C1ynGNFeOrE?t=365
That is great news rinselberg. Another Greenie prediction which will not come true.
Global sales of internal-combustion engine vehicles peaked in 2017. Investment in renewable energy has exceeded investment in fossil fuel infrastructure for several years running now. In 2022, 83 percent of new global energy capacity was green. The question isn’t about whether there will be a transition, but how fast, global and thorough it will be.
The answer is: not fast or global or thorough enough yet, at least on the current trajectories, which COP28 effectively affirmed. To limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius now requires entirely eliminating emissions not long after 2040, according to the Global Carbon Project, whose “carbon budget” for 1.5 degrees Celsius will be exhausted in about five years of current levels of emissions. For 1.7 degrees Celsius, it’s just after 2050, and for 2 degrees Celsius, 2080. And despite Al Jaber’s claim that COP28 has kept the 1.5 degree goal alive, hardly anyone believes it’s still plausible.
Instead, most analysts predict a global peak in fossil fuel emissions at some point over the next decade, followed not by a decline but a long plateau—meaning that, every year for the foreseeable future, we would be doing roughly as much damage to the future of the planet’s climate as was done in recent years. The expected result: end-of-century warming between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius.
Not very long ago, this was a future that terrified us—the world beyond the goals of the Paris agreement looking tremendously bleak. Now, we are not just coming to accept that future but, in some corners, applauding it as progress.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Global sales of internal-combustion engine vehicles peaked in 2017. Investment in renewable energy has exceeded investment in fossil fuel infrastructure for several years running now. In 2022, 83 percent of new global energy capacity was green. The question isn’t about whether there will be a transition, but how fast, global and thorough it will be.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and deception.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Instead, most analysts predict a global peak in fossil fuel emissions at some point over the next decade, followed not by a decline but a long plateau—meaning that, every year for the foreseeable future, we would be doing roughly as much damage to the future of the planet’s climate as was done in recent years. The expected result: end-of-century warming between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius.
Most Global Warming analysts / alarmists .
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "The Long Plateau" (excerpt) "What No One at COP28 Wanted to Say Out Loud: Prepare for 1.5 Degrees" David Wallace-Wells for the New York Times; December 16, 2023.
You pay money to read that Fake News, ?
The United Nations backed climate talks in Dubai, ? The grifting is world wide now.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes.
by Dr. Judith Curry
How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?
Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short
Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’
It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.
So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change are being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.
Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’
Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.
Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
With regards to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st-century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th-century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.
How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th-century renewable energy technologies.
We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century while protecting the environment as much as we can.
This was a pretty interesting discussion.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-18-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Human exploitation of coal, oil and gas for energy also enriches the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, but these are not fundamentally natural processes. They are only "natural" to the extent that humans have evolved to learn how to do this.
As reported by DeSmog, in a 2022 deposition Curry said that Climate Forecast Applications Network’s clients included petroleum companies, electric utilities, and natural gas energy traders, and that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting services.
In 2015, Climate Wire reported that “Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist who is often critical of dominant scientific views of climate change, is is being probed by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who wants to know Curry’s funding sources. Curry runs a weather-forecasting business that supplies information to oil companies, among others.” 11
In 2010, Scientific American reporter Michael Lemonick questioned Judith Curry about potential conflicts of interest. She responded:12
“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
OIL AND GAS MONEY PAYS HER BILLS SHE QUIT GA TECK EVER ANTI-WARMING NUT IS PAID BY OIL GAS PR COAL CORP-RATS
FOLLOW THE MONEY NON OF THESE NUTS DO IT FOR FREE THEY ARE ALL WELL PAID
Originally posted by ray b: In 2010, Scientific American reporter Michael Lemonick questioned Judith Curry about potential conflicts of interest. She responded:12
“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
OIL AND GAS MONEY PAYS HER BILLS EVER ANTI-WARMING NUT IS PAID BY OIL GAS PR COAL CORP-RATS
FOLLOW THE MONEY NON OF THESE NUTS DO IT FOR FREE THEY ARE ALL WELL PAID
Heh. She said her company receive SOME funding.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: SHE QUIT GA TECK
You can not structure a sentence.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: YES THERE IS A BIG INVESTMENT
Oh look... the latest meme posted by Wichita has just been singled out for its stupidity.
Meme posted by Wichita gets the "FactCheck" treatment from Saranac "just call me 'Sara'" Spencer
quote
One meme that’s been widely shared for months tries to cast doubt on the reality of climate change by suggesting that the Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg gets an unfair proportion of media coverage compared with Judith Curry, a climatologist who is popular among those who believe climate change is a “hoax.”
The social media post shows side-by-side photos of the two women and compares Thunberg’s credentials and message to Curry’s, noting that Curry has published scientific papers and claiming that she “says it’s all a hoax.” The meme says that Thunberg “gets 24/7 media coverage” while Curry “gets no media coverage” and concludes, “This is what media manipulation looks like.”
But the meme overstates Curry’s position on climate change and, more importantly, sets up a false comparison between the two in order to give the impression that climate change isn’t happening.
“Comparing media coverage of Greta Thunberg versus Judith Curry is like comparing apples to oranges,” John Cook, an expert in climate science communication, told us in an email. “Greta Thunberg is an environmentalist and typically media coverage about her focuses on the broader movement for climate action. Judith Curry is a scientist whose views are out of step with the mainstream climate science community.”
The evidence of climate change has led to consensus among climate scientists that the phenomenon is happening and is driven by human activity—primarily the burning of fossil fuels, which produce heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide that increase temperatures.
“The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750,” NASA has explained on its website. “This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.”
“What is the appropriate way for the media to cover contrarian scientists?” Cook said. “My research has found that it’s misleading for journalists to give equal weight between mainstream climate scientists and contrarian scientists because it gives the false impression of a 50:50 debate among the scientific community.
“Instead, we recommend in the Consensus Handbook that when airing contrarian viewpoints, they also communicate the weight of evidence or weight of experts,” said Cook, a co-author of the handbook with other researchers at the Center for Climate Change Communication.
So, any lack of coverage for Curry in the news isn’t evidence of a cover-up but, rather, in keeping with best practices for reporting on the issue. It’s also worth mentioning that she gets a fair bit of coverage from conservative media, including Fox News and the New York Post.
As for Curry’s position on climate change—she doesn’t deny that it’s happening. Or that humans have contributed. She argues that natural climate variability is also a major contributing factor and that measures to stanch climate change are likely to be ineffective, which is where she falls out of line with most other scientists.
“I have never said that climate change is a hoax,” Curry told us in an email. “The earth’s climate has been changing for the past 4.6 billion years.”
“Climate change is a geological fact. What is causing the change for the past century is a different issue. Humans are contributing to the recent climate change, but there has also been natural climate variability/change,” Curry said.
But, as we said, that view is out of step with most other climate scientists, who have found that the temperature increases cannot be explained by natural climate fluctuations.
So, the meme is wrong about Curry’s position on the issue, and wrong in its implication that climate change isn’t happening, and the media is covering it up.
That comes with a "side" of footnotes:
quote
Sources
Cook, John. Senior research fellow with the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 6 Dec 2023.
NASA. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming.” Accessed 5 Dec 2023.
NASA. “The Causes of Climate Change.” Accessed 5 Dec 2023.
Curry, Judith. President of Climate Forecast Applications Network. Email exchange with FactCheck.org. 8 Dec 2023.
The meme that Wichita posted, which juxtaposes Greta Thunberg with Judith Curry, was scrutinized in a column that was published just 10 days ago, on December 8, 2023, on FactCheck(.org), and credited to FactCheck staff writer Saranac Hale Spencer.
I said as much in my previous post.
So the answer to your question of "Singled out by who?" is "Singled out by FactCheck(.org), in the person of staff writer Saranac Hale Spencer."
Do you have a question about the answer to your question?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The meme that Wichita posted, which juxtaposes Greta Thunberg with Judith Curry, was scrutinized in a column that was published just 10 days ago, on December 8, 2023, on FactCheck(.org), and credited to FactCheck staff writer Saranac Hale Spencer.
Of course. More biased sources.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Do you have a question about the answer to your question?
Why yes. Yes I do. Why don't your 'opinion' pundits debate the content of what Judith Curry alleges ?
I suggest looking to print media—like the New York Times and Washington Post—for a more complete treatment of "Climate" than that which an MSNBC television broadcast is likely to provide.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2023).]
And all the "gloom-and-doom" scientists are not?! Riiiight.
Scientists know which side of their bread is buttered, and by whom. Their research grants are designed to produce a desired result, i.e., "We're all gonna die." Come up with a different result, and you are possibly sleeping in your car.
They made out like bandits with Greta. All they had to do was put a script and a microphone in front of her face, and tell her to "sing". The term "useful idiot" was created for her. Just another teen-age know-it-all, who has found her "niche" - and what will continue to butter her bread. (I wonder how much she's worth at this point.) And yeah... I've heard it said that she was "on the spectrum". Has nothing to do with that.
Greta and David Hogg ought to hook up, and keep each other busy for a while, and leave us all the hell alone. Assuming they both swing in that direction, which is possibly debatable.
