Climate change

Blog purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Climate change

During this new Administration.

In retrospect,
a majority believes in some type of Climate Change.

I am not sure a majority believe it is man made or if it then is mankind has a small, small part in Climate Change. Yes the media and Academia would say they have a majority and also that Hillary was up 10 points! So don't believe them.

So again in retrospect Climate Change has been rammed down America's throat (very similar to Obamacare being rammed through) and at the cost of midwest JOBS.

So the point is (in retrospect) if there was a softer and more moderate approach to Climate Change and trying to get some agreement then now during another Administration there might be more agreement and more would get done.

But no, not only was Climate Change rammed down our throat (America) if anyone disagreed (like on this Blog) "Oh THEY ARE CLIMATE DENIERS"

So now people like me are saying it is unproductive to continue a large effort toward this (like Paris Accord).
I would not being saying that if Progressives were not forcing me to believe this.

Please stop telling me what to think!

In all honesty
what really didn't help your cause was Democrats making it into a money making machine like Al Gore. I agree President Obama was more sincere.

This also all applies to renewable energy. The huge failures of Solyndra and others and standing by and watch President Obama just throwing money in this area and it looked like he was just wasting Billions of dollars (although sincere).

A more Moderate effort and a slower Progressive agenda may have brought people like me into the cause but I do not see Progressives and Progressive leaders taking ANY responsibility for failure of any kind.

I would add one last point to the above about taking responsibility.
Ash Carter sent Classified emails on his phone. The next day he apologized, said he was wrong and would not do it again.
It never became an issue. You never heard about it again.

So in the future consider not calling me a Climate Denier and I will respect your different belief and try to work with you.

I just am not bought into the man made part after seeing how big this Earth is.
Am I allowed to think that or does that mean I am a bad person?
ReplyDelete
AnonymousDecember 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM

Democrats miss the point. A majority doesn't give two shakes about climate change, they just want to stop their jobs leaving for Mexico and China. That's why climate change worry is a rich, inner city liberal concern. You have to be able to put food on the table before you worry about 1.0 deg C in 35 years.
ReplyDelete
AnonymousDecember 18, 2016 at 9:08 AM

If the climate change issue is about facts and evidence (from both sides of the argument) then it is science, and like any important scientific question should be pursued vigorously. If it is about belief, it is religion, and like any annoying proselytizing, should be ignored. And someone please inform the politicians and the press that there is no such thing as "settled science."

36 comments:

Anonymous said...: December 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM
...A majority doesn't give two shakes about climate change, they just want to stop their jobs leaving for Mexico and China. That's why climate change worry is a rich, inner city liberal concern. You have to be able to put food on the table before you worry about 1.0 deg C in 35 years.

Which is exactly why nothing meaningful will be done about human-driven climate change. Definitely not until people start dying by the millions, and maybe not even then. The rich countries responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions are also best able to mitigate the effects and adapt, while the deaths will occur mostly in poor countries in Africa and Asia. Are we really going to happily suffer so we can save more poor beggars on the other side of the planet? I doubt it.; 12/18/2016 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: The original poster has it right, and no, you're not crazy. The clear fact is that the Earth's average temperature increased by a statistically significant amount in recent decades. Nobody is sure how much of that is nature, if it's a blip or a centuries+ long climate change, or how much is anthropogenic.

Any sensible person would thus say it is prudent to minimize adding carbon into the environment, within reason but not throwing the baby out with the bath-water. And yes, radical progressives (some well intentioned, many just radical for its own sake) and the many, many con artists who leach off the progressive movements, glommed onto this and shoved nonsense down our throats. And yes, on this and other fronts, the common sense people finally got fed up with the political correctness and shouting down of other voices, and that's why the election chose one particular deplorable candidate over the other.

So let's hope that the Trump administration finds a common sense centrist approach. We still do need objective, fact-based scientific climate research. We still do need ever-improving cost-effective clean energy technologies (which by the way includes a resurgence in fission energy for at least the next few decades). We also need to stop pissing away tax dollars on Solyndra and other con artists.; 12/18/2016 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: "So let's hope that the Trump administration finds a common sense centrist approach."

What are the chances of this on any topic?; 12/18/2016 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Any sensible person would thus say it is prudent to minimize adding carbon into the environment...

December 18, 2016 at 3:11 PM

Massive increases in CO2 levels accompanied by tiny, or zero, increases in global temperature, admitted by International and UN climate agencies. Models are being proven wrong every day. "Climate sensitivity" has not been properly addressed. This is the preeminent question. Until it is answered conclusively, expect no action to be supported by the public. No apparent reason to spend large $$ reducing CO2 emissions, and killing carbon-based economies (most of the under-developed world).; 12/18/2016 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: So in a serious mood with an open mind I ask the question of my colleagues. Cyclical climate change is well establihed by the geologic and terrestial evidence. What is the benefit of my sacrifce is reducing my carbon footprint in the face of the large natural inevitable cycle? For example, if I dropped my personal carbon production 20%, something I do not care to do, for the rest of my 30 remaining years, what is the benefit? After I understand this, I will decide whether to join the parade or pass.; 12/18/2016 7:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Well even some scientists don't grasp the concept of global warming, which isn't about cyclical change or even change, it's about RATE OF CHANGE. By all records we are able to pull together, the rate of change in the past hundred years is unprecedented over many thousands of years. That plus models strongly suggest, but do not prove, that we humans are causing the high rate of change. Unless the rate of change drops significantly, either for natural reasons or because we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, then future projections are dire. All of this is well established.; 12/18/2016 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you. What is my dire future?

If over for example a 20000 yr cycle the Earth naturally cycles between a low average temperature of 5C to a peak average of 20 C, How does my contibution affect that? Does it go to a peak of 27C? or 20.7 C? Does it hit 20.7C in 100 years insted of 5000 years?

Seems that adding a linear function to a naturally occuring sinusoid leads to an icreasing sinusoid until the heat lost at the higher temperature hitsca higher steady state cycle.

How over the estimste is made, what is the difference IN effect between me adding CO2 at my present rate and at a 20% lower rate?; 12/19/2016 12:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Continuing...

Once we establish the next natural range of temperature peaks and rate of increase now during a historical cycle, what is the the likely rate with natural and human contribution added to predict a new higher peak and rate for the next cycle.

Once established, what is the corrected temperature peak and rate if I instead agree reduce my personal remaining lifetime Co2 production by 20%?

If its not too much trouble can you add error bars to the numbers?; 12/19/2016 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry to be so specific...I am trying to understand, to begin to quantify acvording to established models, the benefit of my sacrifice.; 12/19/2016 12:38 AM
Anonymous said...: To complete the problem statement....

Once we establish an estimate that in the next 50 years with no change in the present rates of increase of CO2 the Earth will heat up to an average of say 2C higher than it is now. ..and that if I cut my personal production by 20% for the rest of my life the incresse will be say only ~ 1,7C. This is now very helpful.

What are some of the significant differences in these two predicted states to me?

1. Does Fiji avoid being submerged, or is it only postponed 20 years?
2. Does Califonia lose 33% of its arrable land or does it only lose 5%.
3. Does the human population increase more or less as a result of my behavior.

Still trying to understand according to best available thoughtwhether my sacifice brings a worthwhile benefit...that I'm not whistling Nobel Al's favorite ditty.; 12/19/2016 12:57 AM
Anonymous said...: ^^This is why climate change deniers are rightly ridiculed as argumentative crackpots. The only way to answer your questions are with assumptions and models, but you won't agree with the assumptions and you won't believe the models. It is a waste of time to attempt to debate, and therefore best to ignore. Which just riles up the crackpots even more, and makes them even more argumentative.; 12/19/2016 7:30 AM
Anonymous said...: The only way to answer your questions are with assumptions and models, but you won't agree with the assumptions and you won't believe the models. It is a waste of time to attempt to debate, and therefore best to ignore.

December 19, 2016 at 7:30 AM

So you are saying that everyone should change the way they live and hydrocarbon-based economies should die, because of predictions that come from "assumptions and models"?

Ah, the religious aspect of all this begins to emerge. You ask for "agreement" with the assumptions and "belief" in the models, and you intend to "ignore" non-believers. Take another look at the comments by December 18, 2016 at 9:08 AM, and see if you recognize yourself.; 12/19/2016 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Climate change crackpots are so predictable. I actually didn't say anything of the kind, but obviously you just want to argue and project. Ignore.; 12/19/2016 7:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Can't even own up to your own statements. Typical. And the reason why noting you want to happen ever will. Look up "stages of grief."; 12/19/2016 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I sat next to Edward Teller some 20+ years ago in a meeting at the UC Davis Department of Applied Science at the Livermore site and the subject was climate change. I don't recall the speaker, but you can be assured he is/was a world class scientist. Teller would not listen to any other. The conclusion was that global freezing would be more probable than global warming, given data/evidence from core samples (from Antarctica?), and that the multivariate "potential" surface for climate change is much steeper on the freezing side, than on the warming side. Once frozen, it's extremely hard to warmup the planet due to the reflection of sunlight back into space. Massive volcanic action and greenhouse gas loading of the atmosphere is required.

My takeaway was, better "hot" than "cold". What the heck is going on with the latest Artic "vortex".; 12/19/2016 8:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Arctic/Polar "vortex"

http://time.com/4603765/polar-vortex-winter-temperatures-storm/; 12/19/2016 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Arctic warming progressed at a faster rate from 1920 to 1940 (at low CO2) than it has in the last 20 years (at high CO2). The global climate models predicted the opposite. ANY true scientist would want to understand why the models failed before using them to justify economically crippling actions.; 12/19/2016 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Just more evidence of the "climate sensitivity" problem that keeps getting swept under the rug but the true believers.; 12/21/2016 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I was serious when I posed the question which I think is on the minds ofvall who consider this question... What is the benefit of the sacrifice I am making?; 12/21/2016 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I haven't even got to contesting anything...I wonder what the predictions are? If I drop my CO2 production 20% over the remainder of life, what is the effect 50 and 100 and 500 years from now?; 12/21/2016 8:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I thought perhaps one climate scientist read this blog and could simply answer my question. I am disappointed but still curious.; 12/21/2016 8:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "Climate scientists" don't have answers, just models, assumptions, predictions, and beliefs.; 12/22/2016 7:59 AM
Anonymous said...: That describes all scientists. It's the way it works, whether we like it or not. Data is hard, sometimes, but it either supports a model or theory or equation, or not. The next piece of data might support something else. Why do we single out climate science for derision?

There are not many climate scientists at LLNL/LANL, so no one should expect a scientific discussion on this topic on this blog. We do nuclear bombs, not climate science.; 12/22/2016 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: There are not many climate scientists at LLNL/LANL, so no one should expect a scientific discussion on this topic on this blog. We do nuclear bombs, not climate science.

December 22, 2016 at 8:46 AM

You must not have heard Terry Wallace talk on climate science. Last time looked, he was still at LANL.; 12/22/2016 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: There are not many climate scientists at LLNL/LANL, so no one should expect a scientific discussion on this topic on this blog.

December 22, 2016 at 8:46 AM

Funny!; 12/22/2016 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Not many Climate Scientists at the Lab?

I would point you to the debate on Lab Portal and the many people agreeing and disagreeing about Climate Change. The one where someone called it hogwash.; 12/22/2016 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I am not aware of any climate scientists at the labs. Besides these are NNSA labs why on earth would there be climate scientists or climate modelers at bomb labs, crazy just crazy makes no sense so why are we talking about this as being relevant to LLNL, LANL, or Sandia? These labs do weapons and are not looking into how magic unicorn rainbow farts heat up the Indian Ocean, if you want to that than go to the NSF. I cannot imagine that Bechtel, Lockheed or Honeywell would be very happy if they knew their profit could be spent on climate science.; 12/22/2016 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: There are not many climate scientists at LLNL/LANL, so no one should expect a scientific discussion on this topic on this blog. We do nuclear bombs, not climate science.

December 22, 2016 at 8:46 AM

As long as NNSA is part of DoE, then you must 'go along to get along' as they say. Chu and Moniz were big believers in spending the budget on climate science and so LANL was just 'following the money' as McMillan said. When you hear Wallace talk about climate science and LANL you can understand just how far the lab has drifted from its mission of nuclear weapons.; 12/23/2016 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: So to end this thread, can anyone compose response to the question?; 12/23/2016 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: What question?; 12/23/2016 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: What question?

December 23, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Uh, you have to actually read the thread. Go ahead you can do it...; 12/23/2016 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Read. Nah, that's my sister. I prattle unencumbered by the thought process.; 12/23/2016 10:06 PM
Anonymous said...: zero; 12/24/2016 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: There are many Climate Scientists at the Lab. Some of them have won prestigious awards for their science. I can tell you from my experience working with them that anthropogenically induced climate change is without a doubt scientifically proven to be legitimate and a very serious problem for all species on Earth. Yes, there is natural climate variability caused by changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in the solar output, volcanic ash, etc... However the rate of warming we are observing is unprecedented in the climate records we have from ice cores, tree rings, etc.... Time scales for natural climate variability occur over centuries, not decades.; 12/27/2016 8:40 AM
Anonymous said...: And so.... what is the beneficial effect over a few human lifetimes, say 100 years of me reducing my carbon output by 20% over the next 30 years? Same question. I know what I sacrifice. When I know this, I will decide if I want to do it. Maybe one the friends of Nobel Al's can address this.; 12/27/2016 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Is this based on the world temperature data that was adjusted by well intentio ed scientists to fit the warming model in a way that is currently under high level national scrutiny?; 12/27/2016 9:41 PM

LLNL - The True Story -

Blog purpose

Blog rules

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Climate change

36 comments:

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days

Total Pageviews