Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

[dirtypablo]

now you're starting to get it

Oh, I already understood that - you get your information from hollywood. Just because you consume pop culture and use that as your source of news, doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[Scerpi]

How would ice albedo feedback dampen warming? Clouds can have both a warming and a cooling effect, but I'm not aware of any serious science that suggests the net effect would likely be cooling. We don't have all the details figured out, but the overwhelming consensus is a net amplification of warming, not dampening. I posted a video about it earlier, but here's an article on the same topic - not only is the consensus that the net is more warming, but its becoming increasingly clear that we have massively underestimated the amount of warming. Things are going to get much worse, much faster than expected.

Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.

e360.yale.edu

Ok Greta

 

[dirtypablo]

Ok Greta

Another derpo that gets his information from pop culture. I wouldn't even know who she was if it wasn't for you dorks always being triggered by her.

 

[chardog]

Oh, I already understood that - you get your information from hollywood. Just because you consume pop culture and use that as your source of news, doesn't mean everyone else does.

lets not pretend that scientists are the ones driving the debate

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

How would ice albedo feedback dampen warming? Clouds can have both a warming and a cooling effect, but I'm not aware of any serious science that suggests the net effect would likely be cooling. We don't have all the details figured out, but the overwhelming consensus is amplification of warming, not dampening. I posted a video about it earlier, but here's an article on the same topic - not only is the consensus that the net is more warming, but its becoming increasingly clear that we have massively underestimated the amount of warming. Things are going to get much worse, much faster than expected.

Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.

e360.yale.edu

Apologies if I wasn't clear but I don't think I stated that Ice albedo would dampen warming, or that their would be a net cooling effect from cloud cover. I stated that different mechanisms and feedback loops could amplify or dampen the warming, not eliminate it all together. Ice albedo is definitely a warming mechanism while something like greening due to elevated CO2 levels may act as a carbon sink, mitigating some of our emissions. Ocean currents and the future collapse of the AMOC would be catastrophic and we just don't know with certainty what the net effects will be for the earths climate, especially in conjunction with the other feedback loops mentioned.

It's true, that scientists may have underestimated the net effects of AGW and we could be accelerating the heating more than previously modelled for. We'll know soon enough, and by then it will probably be too late.

 

[dirtypablo]

lets not pretend that scientists are the ones driving the debate

Like I said.. just because you're influenced by hollywood doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[PhitePhan]

Are you really saying that Exxon and the other energy giants around the world wanted their climate scientists to affirm anthropogenic global warming? Wouldn't that hurt their product? Their scientists have known about this since the 70s.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/advancing-climate-solutions

Are Exxon or other energy giants suffering yet from this information being out in the public for the past few decades?

 

[dirtypablo]

Apologies if I wasn't clear but I don't think I stated that Ice albedo would dampen warming, or that their would be a net cooling effect from cloud cover. I stated that different mechanisms and feedback loops could amplify or dampen the warming, not eliminate it all together. Ice albedo is definitely a warming mechanism while something like greening due to elevated CO2 levels may act as a carbon sink, mitigating some of our emissions. Ocean currents and the future collapse of the AMOC would be catastrophic and we just don't know with certainty what the net effects will be for the earths climate, especially in conjunction with the other feedback loops mentioned.

It's true, that scientists may have underestimated the net effects of AGW and we could be accelerating the heating more than previously modelled for. We'll know soon enough, and by then it will probably be too late.

Gotcha, I thought you were implying there could be a cooling effect due to the loss of ice albedo.

 

[dirtypablo]

FACT: you cannot list the optimum CO2 levels
FACT: least amount of people are dying due to the climate reasons in the last 100 years despite fourfold of the population
FACT: The cold is the primary killer in climate deaths
FACT: FIMN=NPC

FACT: I've debunked this nonsense multiple times, and you continue to post it.
FACT: You're a simpleton and a hack.

 

[chardog]

Are Exxon or other energy giants suffering yet from this information being out in the public for the past few decades?

their stock is doing pretty darn well for a company that is suppose to implode

it could be that they figured out the grift, people are going to run in circles to find this miracle cure, and the process of running circular is sort of a rat race to line their pockets. Minerals arent going to unearth themselves out of their own good will and electric isnt powerful enough......

coincidentally, there is a huge amount of co2 production that comes from making electric vehicles that is incurred up front rather than later down the line.

exxon is essentially virtue signalling, they have hedged their game.

they literally saying as much on their corporate report:

ExxonMobil is delivering on both sides of the “and” equation – meeting society’s needs for energy and essential products and reducing emissions.

 

[chardog]

FACT: I've debunked this nonsense multiple times, and you continue to post it.
FACT: You're a simpleton and a hack.

you've offered opinions, which isnt the same as debunking <45>

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Are Exxon or other energy giants suffering yet from this information being out in the public for the past few decades?

Yes, there have been numerous lawsuits against the Energy giants

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...hevron-appeals-climate-litigation-2023-04-24/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpal...he-jury-needs-to-know-part-1/?sh=585a18121c4f

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

their stock is doing pretty darn well for a company that is suppose to implode

it could be that they figured out the grift, people are going to run in circles to find this miracle cure, and the process of running circular is sort of a rat race to line their pockets. Minerals arent going to unearth themselves out of their own good will and electric isnt powerful enough......

coincidentally, there is a huge amount of co2 production that comes from making electric vehicles that is incurred up front rather than later down the line.

exxon is essentially virtue signalling, they have hedged their game.

they literally saying as much on their corporate report:

ExxonMobil is delivering on both sides of the “and” equation – meeting society’s needs for energy and essential products and reducing emissions.

They knew since the 70s that their product was going to cause warming. They kept their findings in obscure science journals while their marketing arm sewed doubts and they refused to acknowledge their data publicly until they were forced to. They will most likely need to leave billions of barrels in the ground, but they've made enough these past few decades that they can afford to modify their stance and some of their product now.

 

[PhitePhan]

Yes, there have been numerous lawsuits against the Energy giants

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...hevron-appeals-climate-litigation-2023-04-24/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpal...he-jury-needs-to-know-part-1/?sh=585a18121c4f

So we have some lawsuits filed by states and navigating their way through the court system. Would you admit that we are decades into this and still no material damages have been experienced by these energy companies to-date?

From a legal perspective, I’m curious to see how energy companies can be held specifically accountable for climate change, and it looks like a similar lawsuit was found in Exxon’s favor not too long ago…

“New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon misled shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.”

Exxon found not guilty in New York climate-change securities fraud trial, ending 4-year saga

Exxon Mobil is found not guilty in the case brought against the oil giant by New York's attorney general.

www.cnbc.com

Funny enough, the first link you sent me when I asked about energy companies being financially impacted had a “related” article at the bottom the page titled:

Shell boosts dividend after $28 billion profit for 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/shells-2023-profit-falls-30-28-billion-buybacks-extended-2024-02-01/

As for Exxon, they’re profits are at all time highs…

Exxon announced record earnings. It's bound to renew scrutiny of Big Oil

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

So we have some lawsuits filed by states and navigating their way through the court system. Would you admit that we are decades into this and still no material damages have been experienced by these energy companies to-date?

From a legal perspective, I’m curious to see how energy companies can be held specifically accountable for climate change, and it looks like a similar lawsuit was found in Exxon’s favor not too long ago…

“New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon misled shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.”

Exxon found not guilty in New York climate-change securities fraud trial, ending 4-year saga

Exxon Mobil is found not guilty in the case brought against the oil giant by New York's attorney general.

www.cnbc.com

Funny enough, the first link you sent me when I asked about energy companies being financially impacted had a “related” article at the bottom the page titled:

Shell boosts dividend after $28 billion profit for 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/shells-2023-profit-falls-30-28-billion-buybacks-extended-2024-02-01/

As for Exxon, they’re profits are at all time highs…

Exxon announced record earnings. It's bound to renew scrutiny of Big Oil

Ya, from a strictly capitalistic standpoint they played their position well. There has been UN Accords like Kyoto and legislation by the Biden administration including his executive order stopping the Keystone Pipeline, but actual damages are hard to quantify. The world still needs their product to run, so at this point there's very little that can actually be done.

 

[chardog]

They knew since the 70s that their product was going to cause warming. They kept their findings in obscure science journals while their marketing arm sewed doubts and they refused to acknowledge their data publicly until they were forced to. They will most likely need to leave billions of barrels in the ground, but they've made enough these past few decades that they can afford to modify their stance and some of their product now.

exxon rejected the idea that global cooling was a thing, that was a thing in the 70's. They were correct on global warming.




HOWEVER, if you look at their actual chart predictions, they start to deviate in the 90's, who knows how much more it'll deviate as time goes by, the earth is literally getting greener over that timeframe, and the greening has a negative effect on temperature, and a negative effect in CO2.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

exxon rejected the idea that global cooling was a thing, that was a thing in the 70's. They were correct on global warming.




HOWEVER, if you look at their actual chart predictions, they start to deviate in the 90's, who knows how much more it'll deviate as time goes by, the earth is literally getting greener over that timeframe, and the greening has a negative effect on temperature, and a negative effect in CO2.

They certainly would have preferred global cooling, but they had to reject it because their own scientists models predicted warming. And yes, greening will have a negative net effect on total CO2, but of course it's never quite that simple with a control system as large as the earths climate. With greening, the water cycle will change and water vapor will increase (a much more potent greenhouse gas) in some regions while other areas will become uninhabitable dessert. The interaction between cloud formation, ice dynamics, ocean currents, carbon sinks and the earths overall carbon cycle will change, and we don't know exactly how.

 

[Scerpi]

Another derpo that gets his information from pop culture. I wouldn't even know who she was if it wasn't for you dorks always being triggered by her.

Keep pushing people with garbage policies. And we'll see real shit go down... lol

European farmers step up protests against costs, green rules​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-against-rising-costs-green-rules-2024-01-31/



LOL at a little clown, typing from his momma's basement.



Who the fuck has zero idea what they're talking about?

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50​

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.

More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened. And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.


But please... Continue to be a brainless lemming who's unable to process what's happening in the real world while listening fear mongering morons utilizing hysteria to push garbage agendas that only hurt middle and lower classes.

 

[Scerpi]

They certainly would have preferred global cooling, but they had to reject it because their own scientists models predicted warming. And yes, greening will have a negative net effect on total CO2, but of course it's never quite that simple with a control system as large as the earths climate. With greening, the water cycle will change and water vapor will increase (a much more potent greenhouse gas) in some regions while other areas will become uninhabitable dessert. The interaction between cloud formation, ice dynamics, ocean currents, carbon sinks and the earths overall carbon cycle will change, and we don't know exactly how.

Who would prefer global cooling? lol...

Have the slightest idea what would happen if winters got longer and worse? With shorter growing seasons in smaller farmable regions?

 

[dirtypablo]

Keep pushing people with garbage policies. And we'll see real shit go down... lol

European farmers step up protests against costs, green rules​

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-against-rising-costs-green-rules-2024-01-31/



LOL at a little clown, typing from his momma's basement.



Who the fuck has zero idea what they're talking about?

50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50​

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.

More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened. And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.


But please... Continue to be a brainless lemming who's unable to process what's happening in the real world while listening fear mongering morons utilizing hysteria to push garbage agendas that only hurt middle and lower classes.

So, in response to my comment that you get your news and scientific information from pop culture, you respond with.. more pop culture. You're right, I'm the brainless one.