Climate tech startup aims to store carbon in oceans and reshape the energy sector

[Endymio]

"Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten percent of papers predicted a cooling trend.

An example of lying with statistics, by intentionally choosing the end point of 1979. The heyday of "global cooling" media hysteria culminated in 1970-1975, based on research published in the early 1970s. 1975 was the year the floodgates opened on climate research, and by 1979, the number of papers published a year had quadrupled ...and by 1980, 100% of them were now predicting warming.

 

[Endymio]

You have not put up, what is your model, what is causing this warming...Saying "logarithmic forcing model" is just a distraction to the masses

Only if you fail to understand the words being used. I've repeatedly explained it, both in this thread and across a hundred others on this site. The forcing agent are GHGs, the response to their forcing follows a logarithmic model.

The current models are pretty accurate , if anything they have under predicted

As my link above clearly demonstrates, the '80s-era models drastically overpredicted warming. If you fail to believe the study in the publication Science, you can determine the same yourself by examining the predictions made in the IPCC reports. From the first 1990 report on, the projects have been continually scaled downward.

"...NASA scientist James Hansen's [model' predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are...."

But "climate pollution" (I.e. the airborne fertilizer CO2) didn't "keep rising at an even pace" as Hansen's business-as-usual scenario projected. It rose much faster....and yet the earth warmed much slower.

Note: if you actually read the entire Science article, you'll see that a number of models were accurate -- all those that didn't include Hansen's absurd positive-feedback loop. Yet those predictions weren't the ones quoted by the media in the 1980s and 1990s ...and model code in use today all encompass some form of Hansen's feedback amplification. QED.

 

[kiwigraeme]

And notice that, despite total CO2 Output being significantly higher, Florida is not underwater, despite the doomsday predictions, and we are still alive.


Remember when it was called global warming? How it was going to be the end of the world if we didn't throw away our trucks and buy hybrids? Climate "science" had a prediction model worse then meteorologists. At least they are sometimes right.

How many times have "experts" warned us that we have only "X" years left to reverse change or it becomes "permanent"? How many times have we explained that that is total nonsense? How many times have they been proven wrong? The beauty of the internet is that we can collect proof of these silly claims.

Here's an example:
View attachment 90114

This is an image from a German environmental magazine, where the top headline reads "Larger than expected snowfall the result of climate change" and the bottom reads" Lack of snowfall the result of climate change". There were BOTH from 2023. Here's another:

View attachment 90115

18 years ago, we had 10 years left to "save the world". The same line of argumentation was used by the likes of AoC in congress in the last 2 years. When climate "experts" constantly post contradictory claims like this, it's no wonder people dont believe you.

For the better part of 50 years, environmentalist groups have had the ear of policy makers the world over. For 50 years, we've been hearing contradictory evidence that conveniently always points out that there is an imminent crisis. And after 50 years, people are getting sick of it. As for that AI: LOL, farmers almanac was predicting the weather accurately 100 years ago. What AI were they using then? Chat GPT: steam powered edition? That proves nothing.

Environmentalism has gone from a movement to clean the air and water, to a religion, if not an outright death cult, that is convinced if we dont destroy everything we have built and buy into their new hype speech, the whole world is going to perish. The rapture! The rapture! Prepare your souls! Like any good religion, deviation from the sermons of the faithful is seen as blasphemous, and must be silenced. And like any good religion, the wheels start coming off as more people question their intent. This is why "None of the huge polluters, gas, oil, coal , transit, farming etc with all their billions can muster a single argument why man made climate change is not essential true in most details.In fact it's on record some knew from late 1960s and 1970s
Not one.". Because you refuse to believe in scriptures that disagree with your holy book.

Frankly, if environmentalists cared, they wouldnt have stood in the way of 50 years of nuclear progress. They wouldnt be pushing for new "energy efficiency" requirements that turn appliances from 50 year tools to 5 year disposable junk. They wouldnt be clearing marshlands in florida to put up solar panels. The list goes on. It's a cult, one that uses its beliefs to hammer everyone who doesnt agree with them. And especially after 2020, people have had enough of "experts" trying to flatten them under overt messaging.

My position has nothing to do with Al Gore , Time magazine , what's journalists say

wrt to that article snowfall , no snowfall without reading yes and yes Climate warming can make more snow and less snow

One of the big affects now is floods and droughts in same country at same time happening more often or with more intensity - eg Australia
rains are coming , later , earlier, not at all, shifting to other places.
But the main one is sheer intensity
We are getting hundreds of once every century event happening around the world all the time now. If onlyUSA eccentric news , then would be easy to miss endless floods, cyclones around the world - more in last week eg Mozambique

Final fun fact if 2024 is one of the hottest years ever. If will be one the coolest in the next 50 years

Anyway in science circles debate is way over, way way past gold standard of proof

As for Florida - try getting insurance in many areas .
There are no scientific models that say Florida will be underwater anytime soon, as far as I know . Point me to a current consensus that says that . I've have never ever seen a serious report put out by world climate body even remotely saying that
North Carolina with it's cliff faces is probably more prone in short term with more hurricane driven sea surges. Those sea surges more damaging at moment to soil ( crops ) in the gulf and homes anyway

From memory sea rises were over like 50 year prediction and only a small amount - yet some places in world could drop , others go up more ,land sinking , land rising - ie it's a pretty complicated prediction - a 1cm rise is not 1cm worldwide . Then add in king tides , cyclones etc

 

[Endymio]

yes and yes Climate warming can make more snow and less snow

A primary requirement for any scientific theory is falsifiablity: what set of experimental data will show the theory to be incorrect. If it isn't falsifiable, it's not a theory. If you claim: "global warming is true whether it rains more or less, whether it snows more or less, whether we have more hurricanes or less", you're not doing science.

Anyway in science circles debate is way over, way way past gold standard of proof

In true science, debate is never, ever "way over". Even the theory of gravity is regularly challenged ..( and in fact, we now know our current theory of gravity can't be fully correct).

In any case, if debate truly was "over", climate researchers wouldn't continue to spend billions a year studying a question that, according to you, has already been answered.

... would be easy to miss endless floods, cyclones around the world...

As I posted above, all researchers now agree that climate change is generating fewer cyclones, not more.

 

[scavengerspc]

An example of lying with statistics, by intentionally choosing the end point of 1979. The heyday of "global cooling" media hysteria culminated in 1970-1975, based on research published in the early 1970s. 1975 was the year the floodgates opened on climate research, and by 1979, the number of papers published a year had quadrupled ...and by 1980, 100% of them were now predicting warming.

Ok, but I'm confident in saying what they mean is the breaking point was between 79 and 80. When a 50-50 finally tilted from cooling to warming in media coverage.
But think about it. Even into the 80s, the media was writing Ice Age stories.

I do think you have a valid point, but things like that remind me of why I always want to post links with sources.

and yes Climate warming can make more snow and less snow

And that reminds me why the common term went from Global Warming to Climate Change, despite the minor differences.
The Global Warming term caused the less educated to think there is no way the whole planet is warming, because it is cold in their yard today.

And then who can forget the biggest fool in Climate Change discussion.
Senator James Inhofe brought a snowball in to the Senate to prove that the planet was not warming, since it was snowing outside.
In fact, that year (2015) the planet recorded its highest temperature to date.
A record that was broken again in 2016.

 

[monkeylove]

Actually, no. Hansen's '80s-era models overpredicted current warming from 0.3C - 0.4C (depending on model version) using his "business as usual" scenario. That doesn't sound terrible .. until you realize CO2 emissions didn't continue business as usual: the rapid industrialization of China, India, and much of SE Asia led to a doubling to emissions, which should have resulted in a world nearly one full degree C warmer than it actually is.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

How about all the models that predicted a large increase in hurricane activity? What actually occurred was a decade of the lowest hurricane activity ever on record. So the models were revised to now predict a 25-35% decrease in total hurricane/cyclone activity ... but still the media reports the exact opposite:

https://research.noaa.gov/research-global-warming-contributed-to-a-decline-in-annual-tropical-cyclones-in-the-20th-century/

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years | The National Academies Press

Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.

nap.nationalacademies.org

 

[monkeylove]

An example of lying with statistics, by intentionally choosing the end point of 1979. The heyday of "global cooling" media hysteria culminated in 1970-1975, based on research published in the early 1970s. 1975 was the year the floodgates opened on climate research, and by 1979, the number of papers published a year had quadrupled ...and by 1980, 100% of them were now predicting warming.

Climate Wars explains what happened, especially in 1976.

Earth: The Climate Wars

The iconography of climate disaster has now acquired an almost religious inflexibility. Just as the image of the Crucifixion is inseparable from...

topdocumentaryfilms.com

"Lying with statistics", indeed.

 

[monkeylove]

A primary requirement for any scientific theory is falsifiablity: what set of experimental data will show the theory to be incorrect. If it isn't falsifiable, it's not a theory. If you claim: "global warming is true whether it rains more or less, whether it snows more or less, whether we have more hurricanes or less", you're not doing science.


In true science, debate is never, ever "way over". Even the theory of gravity is regularly challenged ..( and in fact, we now know our current theory of gravity can't be fully correct).

In any case, if debate truly was "over", climate researchers wouldn't continue to spend billions a year studying a question that, according to you, has already been answered.


As I posted above, all researchers now agree that climate change is generating fewer cyclones, not more.

That doesn't work for climate change issues for painfully obvious reasons.

 

[Endymio]

Senator James Inhofe brought a snowball in to the Senate to prove that the planet was not warming, since it was snowing outside ...

Rather like every time a hurricane strikes the US or a wildfire razes California that it proves global warming exists?

In fact, that year (2015) the planet recorded its highest temperature to date.

No -- the hottest year since 1880, when the instrumental record began. Which coincidentally, is right after the so-called "Little Ice Age" ended.

And even that record is suspect. We don't take the temperature of the planet like one does a small child. Nor we do simply "average up" the readings of all temperature stations around the world. The actual calculation now -- used by hadCRUT and GISTEMP/GHCN -- is an entirely opaque process involving more than one million lines of computer code, with artificially chosen weightings and "adjustment factors". Most temperature stations don't have a single adjustment, but rather a value that changes over time -- prior to 1920, they may subtract a degree from the actual readings at the time, and post 1960 add a degree. Some stations that are considered entirely inaccurate have now been removed entirely.

This is done purportedly to enhance accuracy, but a study I read some 15 years ago demonstrated that nearly 75% of the station readings removed showed a cooling trend, whereas only 15% warming (the remainder were flat). And no, I'm not suggesting intentional malfeasance ... just simple confirmation bias. When you're zealously believe that warming MUST exist, it's natural to assume any reading that disagrees with your belief must be somehow in error.

 

[scavengerspc]

Rather like every time a hurricane strikes the US or a wildfire razes California that it proves global warming exists?

Scientists say that? I have never heard any of them say that.

No -- the hottest year since 1880, when the instrumental record began.

I really didn't think I would have to specify that.
I'm sure most 6th graders would have got it.

When you're zealously believe that warming MUST exist, it's natural to assume any reading that disagrees with your belief must be somehow in error.

Take your own advice and read that last sentence. Slowly!
See, factual stats don't need belief, only understanding and proper application.
That last line came from my daughter. She wanted me to put it in.
Sometimes I wish you knew how you sound to people that actually study this stuff.
But then I realize the comedy relief could disappear. And I'm not sure many would want to miss your "thoughts".

And even that record is suspect. We don't take the temperature of the planet like one does a small child. Nor we do simply "average up" the readings of all temperature stations around the world. The actual calculation now -- used by hadCRUT and GISTEMP/GHCN -- is an entirely opaque process involving more than one million lines of computer code, with artificially chosen weightings and "adjustment factors". Most temperature stations don't have a single adjustment, but rather a value that changes over time -- prior to 1920, they may subtract a degree from the actual readings at the time, and post 1960 add a degree. Some stations that are considered entirely inaccurate have now been removed entirely.

Half a story isn't a story:

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

dev-04-drupal-climate.woc.noaa.gov

You know how I always respond to you when you forget your meds.
In this case, it goes don't take it up with me, take it up with NOAA.

EDIT-

but a study I read some 15 years ago demonstrated that nearly 75% of the station readings removed showed a cooling trend, whereas only 15% warming

And please, she asks you to link to that study, or are you referring to the satellite lower troposphere temperature studies?