Browser-based climate change simulation

Goes both ways. The alarmists using "carbon" as a synonym for carbon dioxide is a form of propaganda. https://www.cfact.org/2019/04/25/carbon-is-not-a-synonym-for...

It's not about climate it's about political control. It's a political boogeyman. Left wing politicians have successfully brainwashed a generation to believe they’re gonna die in 12 years unless socialists and communists control our planet and the lives of everyone on it. I was a huge believer in Climate Change as a youth. I wanted to save the environment. Then I caught one lie. Then two. Then three. Then I read the current data. Then I realized they’ve been exaggerating & fear-mongering headlines for decades. No climate apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true to date.

Nature retracted their very alarmist paper, 10 months after publishing https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/nature-retra...

Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened.

I’ve worked with global temperature data, and know that you can produce any shaped global temperature graph you want by picking the right set of stations. There are grossly inadequate amounts of both historical and current data to produce a meaningful long term temperature graph for the earth. Much of the data is fake – by their own admission. https://realclimatescience.com/overwhelming-evidence-of-coll...

Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth in the temperature data without understanding the anomaly. An email unveiled by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request said: “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with why the blip”. http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

One can download the original and altered data directly from the NOAA. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5 You can see and construct the graphs yourself, first hand, with the data pre-plotted in a Google sheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDao... on the “Graphs” tab.

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder has said: “I can adjust the data to show any trend I like.”

Moore left Greenpeace because he felt they were pushing fear-mongering instead of science and logic. More background on the spat between Mr. Moore and Greenpeace can be found at https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/greenpeace-co-founder-pat...

According to the Toronto Sun, Canada’s Department of the Environment just purged 100 years of data on climate change. Patrick Moore said: “I don’t care why they scrapped the data, that is simply wrong. They could make note of why they don’t trust it but to destroy it is a crime against science and history.” https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560 This seems suspicious as no data set should ever be purged, for posterity. This dataset could have simply been deprecated.

Since the NOAA sensors have been unreliable the US has been building a new network higher-quality sensors called the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN) starting in year 2004. The vision of the USCRN program is to maintain a high-quality climate observation network.

It is an error to mis-attribute warming to increased CO2 when many other known causal factors exist. Those other factors are the reason the USCRN was developed, funded, and put in place. The non-CO2 causal factors include increased population density in cities, increased energy use per capita, reduced atmospheric pollution, increased local humidity from human activities (lawn watering, industrial cooling towers), changed site conditions from rural to urban, long-term drought, and wind shadows from buildings in cities. https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/us-air-temperatu...

The new USCRN data has shown no significant warming trend in the USA in 12 years: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/

The USCRN data is rarely mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports to the U.S. public, instead buried in the depths of the NCDC website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t do original research but reports on others’ research, which they call Assessment Reports. There have been 5 thus far.

A scientist working with the IPCC said the IPCC is above Freedom of Information Acts: “One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [Assessment Report 5] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. … Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.”

“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climateg...

Scientists with NOAA view global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-p...

The IPCC report relies upon six long-term surface temperature datasets to come up with the 0.2°C per decade rate of increase. The report does not cite the two global temperature datasets derived from satellites: the University of Alabama in Huntsville reports that global average temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.13°C per decade, and Remote Sensing Systems reports the rate of increase at 0.18°C per decade. At the UAH rate of warming, the 1.5°C threshold would not be exceeded until around 2070. https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. It’s often said that 97% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic climate-change thesis. However, a 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. 11% attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while 23% said enough is not yet known to make any determination.

Source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its...

The UN has been making the same claim that we only have twelve years to save the planet from global warming, for the past 30 years.

The 12-year deadline is a talking point for politicians. However the IPCC said there is not some “magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate 'fine' from 'catastrophic’”

Source: https://www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocas... , https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/15/children-strike-school-cl...

Someone at Reason read the UN/IPCC report, said there is no doomsday in it. https://reason.com/2018/10/11/how-big-of-a-deal-is-half-of-a...

No climate apocalyptic predictions have come true to date, despite 50 years of such predictions.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...

> Note: this is not a great idea; trains release less than a third as much co2 as a truck and electrifying cross country rail would be very expensive. You need extremely high voltage for long distance transmission, which is incompatible with pantographs (the metal things that power trains/buses from overhead).

> You'd essentially need to build dedicated HVDC lines alongside all trunk routes, with regular substations (which are immensely expensive for HVDC) to inject power into the lines. Cross country HVDC would be really great for the grid, but it would be better to build a dedicated solution and forget about the trains. For context, the transmission losses for electricity cause ~2x more CO2 than all trains.

You're not wrong that electrification has a significant upfront cost associated with it, but using DC for it is absolutely not the preferred method for good reasons. Most rail electrification across the world uses 25kV AC overheads, which needs feeder stations typically only every ~50Km. Newer installations are moving to an autotransformer system, where transmission is at 50 kV AC but the trains still receive 25 kV AC, which reduces losses even further and increases the distance between feeder stations to every ~100Km.

Additionally, electrification means that the benefits of moving generation towards less environmentally impacting sources has an immediate benefit on the trains, rather than waiting until the train is replaced. In the UK, over the last year CO2 emissions per passenger per mile have dropped by 10% in just the last year [0] due to a combination of electricity generation moving towards more renewable sources and newly electrified routes.

[0]: https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1531/rail-emissions-2018...

There's a lot of issues with depending upon solely nuclear to solve these problems, but I'd like to see nuclear in the mix.

Unlike the MIT model, components of electric generation are not simple linear systems that exhibit the superposition principle. Renewables need a whole lot of moderate-term storage and over-provisioning to get to where we want to be, and nuclear could help ease that by providing a source of dependable base load.

If we're transitioning to electric cars and homes away from gas heat, we need a whole lot of power in the middle of the night-- where photovoltaic doesn't help and wind can be iffy for days at a time.

From the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report

...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate... [0]

The point is that there were a lot of climate models done in the 70's, and only a few of them were accurate. No one was randomly guessing, but the model you gave was not the consensus.

[0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-in...