MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Global Warming is causing the Polar Vortex ???  (Read 4566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« on: January 25, 2019, 08:17 »
+6
"Large swaths of the U.S. are experiencing the first polar vortex event of 2019, and The New York Times is out with an article suggesting cold snaps are becoming more frequent because of global warming."

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/polar-vortex-not-global-warming/

As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up, Dr. Cohen said.

and a different climatologist says

The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless, Mass said.

 ??? Now the climatologists are splitting and fracturing, like the political parties. Isn't science supposed to be based on conclusions from facts and evidence, not politics or a preconceived conclusion? At least I know where the NYT stands on the political issues. Global warming causes increased cold winters? Give me a break!  ::)


Shelma1

« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2019, 08:55 »
+3
"Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is a major cause of warming trend in the late 20th and 21st centuries.[9][10] He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change."

Tucker Carlson's "news" site takes Mass's statements completely out of context and purposely misinterprets them to imply that he doesn't believe in climate change.

"His blogs on anthropogenic global warming have elicited condemnation from local news media such as The Stranger[16] as well as members of activist environmental organizations[17] due to concerns that Mass's scientific approach to understanding and communicating the risks associated with global warming could result in public apathy or be used by climate change deniers to bolster their claims."

« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2019, 11:09 »
+6
"Global warming" is just a shorthand term used by the media.  What's really happening is much more complicated.  As more solar energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, the overall average temperature increases but locally, all sorts of things happen as that energy circulates.   In the short term some regions may get colder as major air currents (driven in part by the Earth's tilt and rotation) shift and move.  That makes the political situation even tougher as people, and nations, start trying to figure out who wins and who loses.

In the long run we'll all lose if temperatures get high enough.  Right now that's the track we're on.

Climate scientists don't all agree on the details or the short term forecast - we don't yet have the instrumentation or the computing power to answer every question.  It's like oncologists - 9 out of 10 may agree you have cancer, but differ on their guesses about progression.  If you want to pin your hopes on that 1  out of 10 who says he's not sure yet, be my guest - I'll have the surgery.




Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2019, 11:50 »
+3
"Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is a major cause of warming trend in the late 20th and 21st centuries.[9][10] He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change."

Tucker Carlson's "news" site takes Mass's statements completely out of context and purposely misinterprets them to imply that he doesn't believe in climate change.

"His blogs on anthropogenic global warming have elicited condemnation from local news media such as The Stranger[16] as well as members of activist environmental organizations[17] due to concerns that Mass's scientific approach to understanding and communicating the risks associated with global warming could result in public apathy or be used by climate change deniers to bolster their claims."


Sounds true, but the two scientists don't agree, one says warming causes cooling, the other says we don't have worse cold snaps than we did before. Contradictions in interpretations even if they both agree that we need to do more about the projected negative effects of climate change. They could easily agree on the major points. I'm just pointing to an interesting contradiction, that warming causes cooling.

Just read that wheat and grains are god for us and have a correlation to lower heart disease and longer life. Won't the whole Gluten free crowd be surprised? And I don't mean the real 10% of the world population that need to be gluten free. The ones that jump on any bandwagon of new food that comes around the block.

Like my Sister who says free range chicken tastes better. Wow, a chicken that doesn't taste like other chickens, because of the cages it lived in? (free range chickens don't live outdoors, honest, it's just a name for different caged life) Read what Peta says, believers will trust Peta right?  https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/free-range-organic-meat-myths/ Plus if free range chickens did roam the yard, there's no dietary control, they can't be 100% vegetarian because they would eat bugs and worms and anything else they can find. Disappointing compared to the dream that they are organic and better, when it's just an excuse to charge more for a "feel good" raised chicken?

Did you see that egg yolks aren't bad for us and they don't cause higher cholesterol. Darn I know some people who have been eating eggbeaters and only whites for about 50 years. Oops, just an error in interpreting the data, now it's corrected, but I bet people are going to insist forever, that egg yolks are bad, and buy yolk free noodles as well. WOW!

"But theres good reason not to fear the yolks. Scientific research has vindicated dietary cholesterol, finding that eating cholesterol has no real impact on cholesterol metabolism. That is, eating foods high in cholesterol does not mean youll develop high cholesterol. Some evidence suggests that eggs might even be beneficial for cholesterol by raising levels of HDL cholesterol, the good cholesterol thats linked to a lower risk of heart disease."

Yes people will believe all kinds of things that aren't true and if they find out they were wrong they will defend the false claims to the end, and attack anyone who points out the truth. The full Moon has a strange effect on people. And it's better to eat lifeless, white slim, and throw away the good parts with the nutrition in eggs. The same people who pop pills, eat herbals (unregulated, untested, and may contain contamination) will throw away the most nutritious part of the egg, because of a fallacy.

http://time.com/4536939/egg-white-yolk-cholesterol/

The planet has warmer 1.6 degrees since the beginning of accurate measurements of temperatures. Wow, and we're going to stop or reverse the effects of industrial pollution, human environmental destruction caused by burning fossil fuels, deforestation with the rape and destruction of the rain forests, to point out just a few. We'll just sign some accord and promise to reduce the carbon and everything will be fine? Really, does anyone honestly think we can stop a downhill locomotive with no brakes, gathering momentum, by putting toothpicks and pebbles on the tracks? Honest?

Or maybe this is just a climate cycle and we didn't cause the change and can't stop it? How would we stop another ice age?o
Real simple, I don't think we can stop or reverse global warming if we did cause it. A piece of paper or a contract won't do anything. SOmeone needs to show a factual plan and how, then lets talk about what to do. You need plans to build a bridge or a house, you need plans if we are going to stop global warming. Good feelings, or wanting something to happen, aren't science or plans.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2019, 11:56 »
+1
"Global warming" is just a shorthand term used by the media.  What's really happening is much more complicated.  As more solar energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, the overall average temperature increases but locally, all sorts of things happen as that energy circulates.   In the short term some regions may get colder as major air currents (driven in part by the Earth's tilt and rotation) shift and move.  That makes the political situation even tougher as people, and nations, start trying to figure out who wins and who loses.

In the long run we'll all lose if temperatures get high enough.  Right now that's the track we're on.

Climate scientists don't all agree on the details or the short term forecast - we don't yet have the instrumentation or the computing power to answer every question.  It's like oncologists - 9 out of 10 may agree you have cancer, but differ on their guesses about progression.  If you want to pin your hopes on that 1  out of 10 who says he's not sure yet, be my guest - I'll have the surgery.

Steven Hawking says by 2600 we'll have about 100 years to colonize in space and get off the planet or we'll all die. Pretty gloomy prediction. But just like your cancer scenario, the truth is, maybe we don't know, but there's a good chance that Hawkins is in the right area of predicting the future.

Most of my argument with global warming fear and doom, isn't that it's happening, it is. I want to know how we're going to stop it, and feeling good, politics or signing an accord is nothing functional or useful. How do we stop what's happening? Is that possible?

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2019, 13:28 »
+6
The vast majority of scientists agree on climate change. They may have minor disagreements about the messaging around it, but its disingenuous for conservatives to use these minor disagreements as some sort of evidence that climate change isnt occurring.

The rest of your post amounts to confusion about special interests paying for scientific studies that prove the food they make a profit on is not unhealthy. One egg study, for example, was conducted on a small population of undernourished, underweight kids in Central America who had one egg a day added to their poor diets (along with other dietary changes). The added calories led to weight gain....no susprise there. And there was another study conducted on people whose cholesterol intake was already so high it was off the charts, and when an egg a day was added to their diets it made no measurable differences in cholesterol levels because their levels were already so high.
And of course media outlets need clicks and eyeballs, so they breathlessly report misinterpreted results of studies paid for by people selling you something.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2019, 16:37 »
+2
The vast majority of scientists agree on climate change. They may have minor disagreements about the messaging around it, but its disingenuous for conservatives to use these minor disagreements as some sort of evidence that climate change isnt occurring.

The rest of your post amounts to confusion about special interests paying for scientific studies that prove the food they make a profit on is not unhealthy. One egg study, for example, was conducted on a small population of undernourished, underweight kids in Central America who had one egg a day added to their poor diets (along with other dietary changes). The added calories led to weight gain....no susprise there. And there was another study conducted on people whose cholesterol intake was already so high it was off the charts, and when an egg a day was added to their diets it made no measurable differences in cholesterol levels because their levels were already so high.
And of course media outlets need clicks and eyeballs, so they breathlessly report misinterpreted results of studies paid for by people selling you something.

True, somewhat true (special interests studies, not all of them) and true. Especially the last part about media outlets with click baiting headlines.

« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2019, 17:00 »
0
"Global warming" is just a shorthand term used by the media.  What's really happening is much more complicated.  As more solar energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, the overall average temperature increases but locally, all sorts of things happen as that energy circulates.   In the short term some regions may get colder as major air currents (driven in part by the Earth's tilt and rotation) shift and move.  That makes the political situation even tougher as people, and nations, start trying to figure out who wins and who loses.

In the long run we'll all lose if temperatures get high enough.  Right now that's the track we're on.

Climate scientists don't all agree on the details or the short term forecast - we don't yet have the instrumentation or the computing power to answer every question.  It's like oncologists - 9 out of 10 may agree you have cancer, but differ on their guesses about progression.  If you want to pin your hopes on that 1  out of 10 who says he's not sure yet, be my guest - I'll have the surgery.

Steven Hawking says by 2600 we'll have about 100 years to colonize in space and get off the planet or we'll all die. Pretty gloomy prediction. But just like your cancer scenario, the truth is, maybe we don't know, but there's a good chance that Hawkins is in the right area of predicting the future.

Most of my argument with global warming fear and doom, isn't that it's happening, it is. I want to know how we're going to stop it, and feeling good, politics or signing an accord is nothing functional or useful. How do we stop what's happening? Is that possible?

I reccommend the excellent, brief, readable and non-political book by Carl Pope and Michael Bloomberg. 

dk

« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2019, 10:08 »
+2
"I'm just pointing to an interesting contradiction, that warming causes cooling"

A very simplified way to look at this is that it's like what happens on a much smaller scale with a glass of water with ice on a hot summer day. First the water will become very cold as the ice melts and then will start getting warmer and warmer.

« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2019, 11:13 »
+8
Global warming is the term used to describe the overall warming of the earth caused by trapped greenhouse gases like methane, carbon dioxide and others released into the atmosphere.

Global warming leads to climate change which is far more complex as it can cause extremely cold weather which leads some people to say "so much for global warming". But climate change makes overall weather patterns more unpredictable. You can end up with mild winters in one place and record cold in another. You get rain in arid places and drought in places that should be fertile with lots of moisture. The key is unpredictable.

I trust my own senses. I see weather change and record temperatures and it leads me to believe it's a real thing. People that accept global warming as a phenomenon but deny human activity is at least partly responsible is, to me, like standing in the middle of your home as it burns down around you and saying "it's OK cause I didn't start the fire".

Of course people with a vested, i.e. financial, interest in denying climate change will deny climate change but I don't see why almost every scientist in the world would collude to spread a lie. Even if they did, I see what I see and whether we caused it or not, it's a concern.

« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2019, 18:11 »
+3
After a hundred years of research, study, and experience, climatologists can tell us with absolute certainty that tomorrow it might rain and it might not.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2019, 09:30 »
+1
Global warming is the term used to describe the overall warming of the earth caused by trapped greenhouse gases like methane, carbon dioxide and others released into the atmosphere.

Global warming leads to climate change which is far more complex as it can cause extremely cold weather which leads some people to say "so much for global warming". But climate change makes overall weather patterns more unpredictable. You can end up with mild winters in one place and record cold in another. You get rain in arid places and drought in places that should be fertile with lots of moisture. The key is unpredictable.

I trust my own senses. I see weather change and record temperatures and it leads me to believe it's a real thing. People that accept global warming as a phenomenon but deny human activity is at least partly responsible is, to me, like standing in the middle of your home as it burns down around you and saying "it's OK cause I didn't start the fire".

Of course people with a vested, i.e. financial, interest in denying climate change will deny climate change but I don't see why almost every scientist in the world would collude to spread a lie. Even if they did, I see what I see and whether we caused it or not, it's a concern.

Yes very good perspective. People selling global warming and climate change also have a vested interest as their research is funded, while people in denial are not funded. Every scientist in the world is not spreading a lie, they believe what they see and we see warming. They see the cause as various gasses released into the atmosphere. They write their models which are supposed to predict the future, and when they are wrong, they rewrite them to match what happened. What I mean is, the predictions are just that, best guess, predictions, based on what we know.

Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events. Shocking and illogical? But shock gets the New York Times clicks. However another global warming scientist says, in the last 50 years the cold events have actually declined. Now what? No one is misquoted or has their words twisted, taken out of context. Both are Earth friendly advocates and using the same data and science have opposing statements of fact? There's a problem with that. The problem is, now the debate turns to politics instead of science.

The planet is warming. The best theory right now is trapped heat because of gasses in the atmosphere. Natural causes have been eliminated through denying that they are the cause, and the conclusion is since there are no other causes, the answer must be, humans and their gasses, reduction in the forestation, plus some minor natural gas production. Like a case where the police only follow one subject and don't consider any others, that's how climatologists are proceeding at this time.

What should we do about human-induce climate change? 30% of all greenhouse gasses are produced by creating energy. Does anyone think the electrical power for electric cars will come with less energy production and creating more pollution? What I mean is, how do you create that energy? Not coal, maybe natural gas? Solar and wind don't produce efficiently, yet. I'd say nuclear energy, but we can't have that.

How do we do something that matters? That's what I want to know!

What's the action, the functional working solution, not what's the latest theory, latest prediction from a computer model, not latest click bait cry of doom, or the politics.

How do we change the future?


dk

« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2019, 10:01 »
+4
Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events.

I tried to explain this with the ice and glass of water example. When the icebergs melt the ocean will become colder and cold oceans make for colder winters. When all the ice melts then the water will start getting hot.

Of course the earth is not a glass of water with ice and is much more unpredictable.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2019, 10:22 »
0
Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events.

I tried to explain this with the ice and glass of water example. When the icebergs melt the ocean will become colder and cold oceans make for colder winters. When all the ice melts then the water will start getting hot.

Of course the earth is not a glass of water with ice and is much more unpredictable.

Yeah and the polar vortex comes from Canada not the ocean, and the two guys disagree, using the same data. Add that I didn't honestly understand your reasoning, nothing personal I just don't understand.  :) You mean the icebergs and the thawing of the polar ice caps, is actually cooling the ocean, until they melt, and then everything will get warmer, much faster? Lucky me, I live inland, and the actual predictions saw I'll be dead about 600 years before any of that happens... and if it was tomorrow, I'm well inland.  ;)

This is not warming


But some climate scientist tries to blame it on warming.

Fair to say, some of the others say it's not true. I get to pick which one I agree with and the second is my choice. Just like the weather, when it says, it's clear outside and I can look out the window and it's raining. Storms are very localized if you watch the radar.

That's weather, not climate. But someone telling me it's colder, because it's warmer, I'm going to question that.


« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2019, 10:44 »
+5
You are grasping the problem, but don't seem to have a good understanding of scientists or the scientific process.  Scientists search for the truth by testing hypotheses.  If your hypothesis is contradicted by your research, then it must be wrong and you come up with a new, hopefully better, hypothesis that accounts for the new results.  If your hypothesis is not contradicted that doesn't mean it is correct, only that it wasn't contradicted by your experiments - it might or might not hold up in future work.  Because the truth is unknown, you have to always be cautious and there are often multiple ways to interpret the results of scientific research that can appear contradictory.  It is all part of the process and hopefully you eventually end up at the truth.  However, scientists have no vested interest in getting certain results - you report what you got, and if it proves your hypothesis wrong, then you start over.  Whoever turns out to be right in the long run usually gets the glory so there is an incentive to be the first to be correct, but certainly no incentives to get preordained results - it doesn't work that way.  The only exception might be if someone is being funded by an entity that wants to slant the results, but no ethical scientist will take funding from such groups without assurance of being able to publish freely whatever the outcome.

Climate change is not my area but we certainly know many facts, some of the most important being that the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are higher now than they likely have been during the past several hundreds of millions of years at least, that the climate overall is warming, sea level is rising and the vast majority of all these changes have occurred very recently due to the activities of Homo sapiens.

What to do about it?  The rational world already decided on a way forward - the Paris accords, signed by almost 200 countries.  Those are not mandatory and are far from perfect but at least are a start.  To make a real effort we should eliminate coal and other fossil fuel sources as much as possible, plant trees, and promote birth control to reduce the size of the human population and slow its growth rate.  I'm not sure what else - I'm sure the experts have many other ideas for what can be done.  Wind and solar power can make a great contribution - come out to the midwest some time and you will see all the farmers making tons of money having wind turbines on their land.  They should provide tax incentives for the development of solar roof tiles and installation of solar panels on every rooftop.

We know a lot of what to do, the problem is getting anything implemented through the political process.  Developing countries want what everyone else has and don't want to slow their progress.  Developed countries are used to their advantages and don't want to give anything up.  Companies in energy industries - who have known full well the global implications of their industries for decades at least - buy off politicians and fight tooth and nail against every regulation.  Religions fight against birth control because it slows their plans for world domination.  Of course it doesn't help when some countries elect complete idiots to positions of power and many others are ruled by autocrats who only care about personal wealth.

Human beings have an amazing ability to ignore or deny problems that they don't understand and especially if it doesn't affect them directly.  If you don't live on Tangier Island then sea level rise so far is a minor a annoyance at most.  People think a cold snap in the northern hemisphere means climate scientists are wrong, ignoring the facts that those can be explained, temperatures over the world as a whole are up and Australia is experiencing one of their worst heatwaves on record.

Unfortunately, the political will for real change likely will not be there until it is too late.  Most people don't care if sea level rises a few inches or hurricanes get a little stronger.  When the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt - and they certainly will if we don't make any changes - then sea levels will rise tens of meters and almost everybody will be affected, but by then it will be too late to go back and could take millions of years to correct, and of course would not go back to the same anyway.  This is the real threat to our security and I hope people will make significant changes while they still can. 

However, I am not hopeful.  For example, I wanted to put solar panels on my roof.  Where I live the cost of energy is too low and the state has been bought off by energy companies to make solar more expensive.  I would have to pay $30 K up front, and might get it back over 10 years if lucky.  Since I will likely be retired and moved somewhere else by then it doesn't make economic sense to make a big cash outlay that someone else will benefit from.  I am fully aware that this would be best for the planet in the long term, but am making a short-term decision to benefit my greedy little self.  Most people do the same.  This is where we need enlightened governments.  If there were a 25% tax credit for installing solar panels - as there really should be - and if the state would allow net metering so I could sell any extra back to the energy company I would sign a contract to install solar panels tomorrow.  We need to provide economic incentives for people to do the right thing.  This would also likely stimulate the economy possibly being revenue neutral in the long term.  Although we have seen that increased revenues following tax cuts only exist in Republican fantasy land and don't pan out in reality, a tax cut to install solar panels might actually work.  In any event, to make any meaningful change requires resolve by governments and for voters to make intelligent choices.  Neither of those seems likely in my (hopefully overly pessimistic) experience.

dk

« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2019, 10:50 »
+2
Well i'm just a stock photographer but yes, that's how i understand it. It gets colder where you live because it is warmer somewhere else. It's like the chaos theory with the butterfly etc. When in Saudi Arabia they have heatwave for months that means the earth temperature rises and so melts the ice on the poles causing colder winters in areas close to the ice like Canada in your example.

« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2019, 11:07 »
+2
84.7% of all stats are made up on the spot.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2019, 11:32 »
0
84.7% of all stats are made up on the spot.

We know that from reading here?  ;)

sgoodwin4813 and solar, most states give a 30% tax credit for adding solar heat or electric, where are you?

And what does this mean? "Where I live the cost of energy is too low and the state has been bought off by energy companies to make solar more expensive."

How does the state get bought off by the energy utility to make solar more expensive. Don't you buy the same panels and equipment that the rest of us can buy? Or is there a tax where you live and tax credits where many others live. How does that work?


Shelma1

« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2019, 11:52 »
+4
You know whats really odd? This quote attributed to Mass only seems to appear in right-wing media that all pick up identical stories from one another. I cant find a single reputable news source with that quote from him.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2019, 12:30 »
0
You know whats really odd? This quote attributed to Mass only seems to appear in right-wing media that all pick up identical stories from one another. I cant find a single reputable news source with that quote from him.


I suspect a certain President will tweet about this event, suggesting it contradicts global warming, and some activist/media types will claim it is the result of global warming.  Neither will be correct.  Perhaps something I will talk about in a future blog.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/

I'm not wasting more time on this. They disagree. I don't care that it's the middle of Summer in Australia, and don't advocate that a heat wave proves anything, any more than a cold snap in Wisconsin is anything but weather, without some deep sign of anything climate. I think most responsible climatologists, and anyone who has any sort of real science background, would agree. It's weather, which is different from climate.

The event is nothing new: Alberta clippers are common in the winter when the weather pattern features a southward dip in the jet stream east of the Rockies.

But there's your link to Mass, confirming his viewpoint, even if it's not identical to the quote elsewhere. The original was as this: noting that Mass told them and they are reporting what he told them, not a quote from some other source.

Such claims make no sense and are inconsistent with observations and the best science, University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless.

Stay warm






« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2019, 14:40 »
+3
You all don't need to worry the problem was solved in 2016. In the email sent out to staff on Thursday morning, CSIROs chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority.

Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change, he said. That question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with? Marshall is handing out notices and 350 workers are to be sacked. Climate change is a fact, more research is not needed.

RAW

« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2019, 10:09 »
+1
Global warming is way more of a US national emergency than any problems on the southern border (I won't even mention gun violence).

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59xpxa/the-next-financial-crisis-could-be-caused-by-climate-change

« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2019, 15:37 »
+2
Global warming is way more of a US national emergency than any problems on the southern border (I won't even mention gun violence).

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59xpxa/the-next-financial-crisis-could-be-caused-by-climate-change

I wouldn't trust anything from Vice. That's as a bad a website as you can get for any kind of opinion.

The reality is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The climate of the planet has been changing for billions of years and it will continue to change in the next million years.

There is no denying that climate change is real, but at the same time, there isn't much that we can do about it. We can try to cut back on emissions and pollution, but it needs to be done around the world and not just be used as a political tool in the United States.

People use Global Warming is such abstract ways that it doesn't make any rational sense. I'll give you one example. People said that the wildfires in California were caused by global warming. But no, they were caused by people being careless, they were caused by strong winds knocking down power lines, they were caused by a severe overpopulation of trees constantly fighting for the same water resources. And because of the lack of water resources, many of these trees are dying and environmentalists fight to prevent any kind of tree thinning.

When it comes down to it, people were filing lawsuits against PG&E for some of the wild fires. It's funny how money bring out the logic in people. And the reason why PG&E was so careless was because Jerry Brown vetoed a fire safety bill in 2016 that would have held companies like PG&E to be more responsible. People just ignored that fact that PG&E executives were working with Jerry Brown at the time and they were some of the people responsible for the wild fires in California in 2018.

We've gotten so much rain in California in the last few months that people has finally shut up about blaming global warming for everything.

« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2019, 15:58 »
0
What to do about it?  The rational world already decided on a way forward - the Paris accords, signed by almost 200 countries.  Those are not mandatory and are far from perfect but at least are a start.  To make a real effort we should eliminate coal and other fossil fuel sources as much as possible, plant trees, and promote birth control to reduce the size of the human population and slow its growth rate.  I'm not sure what else - I'm sure the experts have many other ideas for what can be done.  Wind and solar power can make a great contribution - come out to the midwest some time and you will see all the farmers making tons of money having wind turbines on their land.  They should provide tax incentives for the development of solar roof tiles and installation of solar panels on every rooftop.

The Paris Agreement was useless. They only reason why countries signed up was to get free money from the U.S. It treated countries like China and India (The biggest polluters) as "third world countries" and they were basically free to pollute for the next 20 years and when the time comes, they were not obligated to do anything. It did absolutely nothing to stop anyone from polluting. That only way to make things work is to make sure the biggest polluters get reigned in instead of given them a free pass. The biggest issues affecting the world are in China and India, including pollution, birthrates and heavy reliance on coal.

And we saw what happened when France decided to raise the fuel tax...people riot in Paris. There needs to be balance instead of forcing something that doesn't work. There are more trees now than we had 35 years ago, than 100 years ago. As our usage of paper go down and it will continue to go down as our reliance on digital continue to grow, the tree population will just be fine.




Shelma1

« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2019, 16:08 »
+4
One of the best, easiest and healthiest things you can do for the planet and yourself is to cut back on meat and dairy. If we cut our consumption of meat and dairy by 50% we'd exceed our goals for reducing emissions. That would take us back to the amount we were eating 50 years ago. Animal agriculture is a main driver of climate change, deforestation and mass extinction.

« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2019, 18:46 »
+2
Well since I am a trained climate scientist like you, I too have an opinion. Well really not that, JK. But I did read long ago a theory that the earth could cool from global warming. Sounds crazy I know! So the theory said that ice melting at the poles would create quite cold runoff of fresh water that could slow or stop important ocean currents that help stabilise global temperatures. Something about cold fresh water falling into the deep sea. Or some such similar thing. It was a long time ago that I read this theory and I don't recall most of the details. But I assure you this was a real theory.

« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2019, 21:52 »
0
sgoodwin4813 and solar, most states give a 30% tax credit for adding solar heat or electric, where are you?

Yes, the 30% Federal tax credit makes a huge difference but not quite enough where I live, and it is being phased out over the next few years.

And what does this mean? "Where I live the cost of energy is too low and the state has been bought off by energy companies to make solar more expensive."

How does the state get bought off by the energy utility to make solar more expensive. Don't you buy the same panels and equipment that the rest of us can buy? Or is there a tax where you live and tax credits where many others live. How does that work?

Installing your own solar panels makes the most sense where electricity rates are the highest - in my state they are well below the national average so it takes a long time to get your investment back.  If you live in Connecticut, Hawaii or California then it makes much more economic sense.  It also works best in states that allow net metering, where you get credits when you generate more electricity than you need (e.g., during summer) that you can use later.  My state - along with many others - makes net metering more difficult, at the behest of the energy companies to protect their own profits.  There is a legitimate concern about net metering, since the companies that install and maintain the power lines should be compensated for their efforts.  There are ways around that but the energy companies get states to go against net metering to protect profits of the energy companies instead of helping the people of the state.

« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2019, 22:19 »
+2
The reality is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The climate of the planet has been changing for billions of years and it will continue to change in the next million years.

There is no denying that climate change is real, but at the same time, there isn't much that we can do about it. We can try to cut back on emissions and pollution, but it needs to be done around the world and not just be used as a political tool in the United States.

This is certainly true, and there have been many instances of dramatic natural climate change during recorded history.  For example, the "year without a summer" in the northern hemisphere in 1816 resulted from a volcanic eruption that caused extensive famines due to crop failures.  The explosion of the volcano Krakatoa in 1883 depressed temperatures in the northern hemisphere by over 1 C in some areas and it took almost five years to get back to normal.  The "little ice age" in Europe lasted around 500 years - those paintings of people skating on the canals in the Netherlands from the 1600s and 1700s were because they really could do it then.  There are lots of other examples and all completely natural.  And of course we seem to be in an interglacial period anyway.  However, the changes during the past 30-50 years are more extensive and due almost entirely to people.  It will be impossible to provide an exact estimate of how much is due to people with a backdrop of natural changes but we can be confident that much of what is occurring now is preventable.

Climate change is a real phenomenon not just a political tool, but I agree that the whole world needs to do something, not just the US.  We should be leading on this, not retreating.

« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2019, 22:58 »
+1
The reality is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The climate of the planet has been changing for billions of years and it will continue to change in the next million years.

There is no denying that climate change is real, but at the same time, there isn't much that we can do about it. We can try to cut back on emissions and pollution, but it needs to be done around the world and not just be used as a political tool in the United States.

This is certainly true, and there have been many instances of dramatic natural climate change during recorded history.  For example, the "year without a summer" in the northern hemisphere in 1816 resulted from a volcanic eruption that caused extensive famines due to crop failures.  The explosion of the volcano Krakatoa in 1883 depressed temperatures in the northern hemisphere by over 1 C in some areas and it took almost five years to get back to normal.  The "little ice age" in Europe lasted around 500 years - those paintings of people skating on the canals in the Netherlands from the 1600s and 1700s were because they really could do it then.  There are lots of other examples and all completely natural.  And of course we seem to be in an interglacial period anyway.  However, the changes during the past 30-50 years are more extensive and due almost entirely to people.  It will be impossible to provide an exact estimate of how much is due to people with a backdrop of natural changes but we can be confident that much of what is occurring now is preventable.

Climate change is a real phenomenon not just a political tool, but I agree that the whole world needs to do something, not just the US.  We should be leading on this, not retreating.

And yet, people always used it as a political tool. Former Governor Jerry Brown immediately blamed Global Warming for the wildfires when he was the one responsible for vetoing the fire prevention bill in 2016 that would have forced PG&E to cut trees along their power lines. It was classic deflection to shift the blame from himself to Trump, and it worked because almost everyone in California hates Trump. He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

When it's immeasurable on how much humans affect climate change, that makes it a fairly abstract concept. We have more cars than ever, more humans than ever. We can all do our part by driving hybrids or electric, but we can't control what other countries do. By comparison, the U.S. use refined petrol while many parts of the world use low quality petrol that greatly contributes to the pollution of this planet. The human population will continue to grow and there is little we can do. It seems like over-population of the planet is inevitable and we end up with some sci-fi scenario we've seen in so many movies.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

dk

« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2019, 09:04 »
+1
We've gotten so much rain in California in the last few months that people has finally shut up about blaming global warming for everything.

When ice melts, water evaporates and there will be more rain. Scientists have said we should expect more rain due to global warming.

« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2019, 17:09 »
+1
We've gotten so much rain in California in the last few months that people has finally shut up about blaming global warming for everything.

When ice melts, water evaporates and there will be more rain. Scientists have said we should expect more rain due to global warming.

Water can evaporate anywhere. There is a giant ocean of water where it can evaporate from.

Global Warming scientists are so inconsistent. First, people blame the lack of rain on it, then too much rain on it. It was supposed to be the dry places get drier and the web places get wetter. Now the dry places get wetter and it's still global warming.

Looks like global warming has everything covered. Cold, hot, rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, drought, tornados. What isn't global warming these days? People need to stop crying wolf and people need to stop believing everything they're told.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 17:11 by Minsc »

« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2019, 18:04 »
+2
If I may enter the discussion, i respect scientists, they devote
their life to a field of knowledge. But there is only one certain proven fact.

Earth found it's balance and survived,
better evolved for millions of years to a paradise.

Well actually, two certain facts: the one above
 and our beleif that we are the owners of the planet.

Actually, the planet, can recover from (guess) anything we do or create
And it can recover retransformed but without us. So, bad news for us.
The planet is the owner of us as long as we cannot leave to a same natural conditions place.
Nor we can adapt as structures, not by tech means to whatever the transformation might be.
We might be able to move to the stars one day, but this place was made for us.
Not in theology terms, but in evolution terms, it was made suited to our structure.

We seem to envy rich people, they can buy a seat on future spaceships but guess what?
No place identical to earth, no other planet accepts dollars or even perhaps gold.

Too bad we didn't make it better. And the only proof of our existance is not all those
monuments, all this art literature, paintings, poetry, music, all this human effort and work
but a planet that might finally destroy us in order to evolve again.

I believe that the earth is not dying, it is adapting
and we are not for sure included it's future plans :)

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2019, 18:18 »
+4
As a geologist and someone who has spent a fair amount of time in places that have glaciers or used to have glaciers it is pretty obvious that they are melting away much faster than they have in the recent past. Just looking at the before and after photos of some places is astounding. Many of the glaciers in the lower 48 US states will probably be gone in my lifetime.

My take on global warming is that it is real and at least some of it is caused by human actions, it will have drastic effects on humans no matter what we do (too late to completely stop the effects now), we could make it so things won't be all that bad, but we won't until it gets a lot worse. In general wet places will get wetter , dry places will get dryer (warm air can carry more moisture than cool air), and things will be less steady - so for instance in the dry parts of the SW USA it will be dryer most of the time with a few bigger storm events which will lead to flooding and other problems. Mostly climate change will be a problem for people, who like things to stay more or less the way they are used to. Some places will be better off, some not much change, and some will be completely screwed - like Miami or Bangladesh. As people try to leave places that are less habitable all sorts of unpleasantness will erupt.

Will things always exactly follow the broad predictions? of course not. Weather does what it does on a shorter time scale than climate. Over a longer time scale we will see the changes in climate. I hope that my take is too pessimistic, but I worry it might be too optimistic.

« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2019, 19:08 »
+4
He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

Brown definitely did some shady things and should be called out on them, but "corruption at its finest" I think has to be reserved for Trump - nobody at the state or Federal level seems to have been as corrupt as Trump, and I suspect we have only heard the tip of the iceberg so far.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

Pulling out is definitely retreating. 

Your idea that we were being asked to pay $100 billion so other countries could do whatever they want is factually inaccurate.  The US actually paid $1 billion to a fund that was being used for projects to limit emissions in less developed countries, and our total pledge was only $3 billion.  The plan if I remember correctly was for all countries worldwide to contribute $100 billion, but all of that was to go to mitigating and reducing climate change, not for anything they wanted.  Everyone is blaming the US because it is a fact that we use way more energy per capita than any other country, including India and China combined.  Of course those two countries have total carbon outputs that are high because of their very large populations and they need to be part of the solution.  The main problems with the Paris accords were that it allowed too many countries to slide, had no hard goals and no enforcement mechanism, but at least it was a start.

France has a plan to ban gas and diesel cars by 2040 and several other countries (e.g., Norway) plan to do it even earlier.  Even India and China have plans to ban gas and diesel vehicles.  A couple days ago Germany announced a plan to ban coal use by 2038 and many other countries have done the same.  That is what leadership looks like - countries taking firm steps to combat global warming.  The US is going the wrong direction, and pulling out of the Paris accords just makes us look weak and impotent.

« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2019, 20:00 »
0
He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

Brown definitely did some shady things and should be called out on them, but "corruption at its finest" I think has to be reserved for Trump - nobody at the state or Federal level seems to have been as corrupt as Trump, and I suspect we have only heard the tip of the iceberg so far.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

Pulling out is definitely retreating. 

Your idea that we were being asked to pay $100 billion so other countries could do whatever they want is factually inaccurate.  The US actually paid $1 billion to a fund that was being used for projects to limit emissions in less developed countries, and our total pledge was only $3 billion.  The plan if I remember correctly was for all countries worldwide to contribute $100 billion, but all of that was to go to mitigating and reducing climate change, not for anything they wanted.  Everyone is blaming the US because it is a fact that we use way more energy per capita than any other country, including India and China combined.  Of course those two countries have total carbon outputs that are high because of their very large populations and they need to be part of the solution.  The main problems with the Paris accords were that it allowed too many countries to slide, had no hard goals and no enforcement mechanism, but at least it was a start.

France has a plan to ban gas and diesel cars by 2040 and several other countries (e.g., Norway) plan to do it even earlier.  Even India and China have plans to ban gas and diesel vehicles.  A couple days ago Germany announced a plan to ban coal use by 2038 and many other countries have done the same.  That is what leadership looks like - countries taking firm steps to combat global warming.  The US is going the wrong direction, and pulling out of the Paris accords just makes us look weak and impotent.

It may not be $100 billion for the U.S., but were were going to pay a good part of it over 10 years. With China and India claiming "third world country" status, they didn't have to pay anything. They were getting money. I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

I've visited China a couple years ago and they're not even close to being ready for ban of diesel/gas cars. Neither is India, where they can't even keep the Ganges clean. It's all talk and there has been no progress. That's not leadership. We haven't used coal in our daily lives in decades. The world knows that we have about 75 years of oil left and the reduction of reliance on gasoline is on the map for most of the world powers. It needs to figure out solutions and if there isn't any, we're going to be facing a Mad Max scenario.

There will be an energy crisis in the future. Coal and other fossil fuels are used to maintain the power grid. Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 22:53 by Minsc »

« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2019, 19:10 »
+2
As a geologist and someone who has spent a fair amount of time in places that have glaciers or used to have glaciers it is pretty obvious that they are melting away much faster than they have in the recent past. Just looking at the before and after photos of some places is astounding. Many of the glaciers in the lower 48 US states will probably be gone in my lifetime.

My take on global warming is that it is real and at least some of it is caused by human actions, it will have drastic effects on humans no matter what we do (too late to completely stop the effects now), we could make it so things won't be all that bad, but we won't until it gets a lot worse. In general wet places will get wetter , dry places will get dryer (warm air can carry more moisture than cool air), and things will be less steady - so for instance in the dry parts of the SW USA it will be dryer most of the time with a few bigger storm events which will lead to flooding and other problems. Mostly climate change will be a problem for people, who like things to stay more or less the way they are used to. Some places will be better off, some not much change, and some will be completely screwed - like Miami or Bangladesh. As people try to leave places that are less habitable all sorts of unpleasantness will erupt.

Will things always exactly follow the broad predictions? of course not. Weather does what it does on a shorter time scale than climate. Over a longer time scale we will see the changes in climate. I hope that my take is too pessimistic, but I worry it might be too optimistic.

Lately climate deniers frequently mention cold snaps as justification to deny the "fact" that we are losing polar ice and glaciers. If the world is actually getting colder overall as they claim. How do they explain the loss of ice and what do they belive happens when large amounts of cold water enter the ocean currents which act like a conveyor belt - transporting warm water and precipitation from the equator toward the poles and cold water from the poles back to the tropics. It is well known that the ocean currents regulate global weather.

Watch the 6 graph cubes - central to ice melting in the arctic between 1979 - 2018
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/155/video-annual-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2018-with-area-graph/

« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2019, 12:48 »
+1
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.     

« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2019, 14:47 »
0
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.   


Your post peaked my interest about what HAARP is. Holy crap. https://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp_weather_modification_electromagnetic_warfare_weapons
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 08:38 by cathyslife »

« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2019, 15:07 »
+1
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.   


Your post peaked my interest about what HAARP is. Holy crap. https://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp_weather_modification_electromagnetic_warfare_weapons
     Note that HAARP is being retired as more efficient technology installed on satellites is available.  Some pretent that other countries also have HAARP like technology - (Russia, China, Germany, SA).

« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2019, 08:20 »
+2
I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

The US has certainly done some, but it is a fact that Trump and Reagan before him are rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles.  The US would have lead the world in this after Jimmy Carter was president - he even had solar panels installed on the White House - but those were all dismantled by Reagan solely to benefit energy companies.  The use of solar and wind power in the US has occurred mostly in spite of the government rather than being aided by it, although there have been some tax credits passed that do help a lot (currently being phased out).  It is a shame that our efforts are thwarted by companies protecting their own profits at the expense of the planet.

Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

I'm not a big fan of some of the huge solar farms that take up a ton of land.  There is one visible from Joshua Trees National Park and another one near Indianapolis airport that really stick out.  But you could put solar cells on every rooftop without using an inch of additional land.  That wouldn't solve all our energy needs, but it would allow the most polluting power plants to be closed and would reduce peak demand in the summer, limiting the strain on the power grid.  Distributed solar would have many benefits, not the least of which would be tons of jobs installing all of the panels.

Yesterday I had someone over to work on my geothermal system.  It is always difficult to get geothermal experts out because it is not as popular as it should be, due to the high initial cost I assume.  I asked him what proportion of people use geothermal and he said in our area it was around 3%.  I couldn't believe it was that low.  He also said that a lot of smaller, rural power companies are making plans to tax all of their customers a certain amount and using the money to help people install geothermal loops.  The reasoning is that geothermal would reduce peak demand during the winter (and to a lesser extent during the summer) and this would lower costs to the companies so that they could reduce rates overall.  That was the first I had heard of that or the concept that spending money up front to install geothermal could lower power rates for everyone in the future.

Worries about wind turbines killing birds are overblown.  The first time I was near the base of a wind turbine I expected to see piles of dead birds, and instead I saw none.  More recent work has shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines per gigawatt of electricity produced is 20 times less than those killed by traditional power generation.  The world has plenty of potential solutions, they just need to be implemented and for that we need good governments that are not beholden to special interests.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2019, 11:05 »
+1

It may not be $100 billion for the U.S., but were were going to pay a good part of it over 10 years. With China and India claiming "third world country" status, they didn't have to pay anything. They were getting money. I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

I've visited China a couple years ago and they're not even close to being ready for ban of diesel/gas cars. Neither is India, where they can't even keep the Ganges clean. It's all talk and there has been no progress. That's not leadership. We haven't used coal in our daily lives in decades. The world knows that we have about 75 years of oil left and the reduction of reliance on gasoline is on the map for most of the world powers. It needs to figure out solutions and if there isn't any, we're going to be facing a Mad Max scenario.

There will be an energy crisis in the future. Coal and other fossil fuels are used to maintain the power grid. Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

Right! With some minor disagreements like the birds or fear of nuclear.

And there's part of the problem where theory and reality diverge. No matter what technology someone comes up with, an opposition will appear. Nuclear is the least pollution but people fear China Syndrome and other sci fi events. The Japan plant was hit by a tsunami following an earthquake. We aren't likely to have that happen in the US. The latest big news was a metric ton of waste, being stored. A ton and everyone is up in arms? Most cars weigh a ton, start thinking. It's being stored in a huge hole, under a mountain, in the Nevada desert, that was made by nuclear testing blasts. In other words, there's already a big hole that's a sealed glass walled chamber, that's already full of radiation.

Wind works, but not as well as it should. Most of those big turbines were built with government money, to make them possible, not because there is a real investment and profit to be made. Some other designs have been tested, birds aside, and when they collect ice, in Iowa, they fling it off and do all kinds of local damage.

Solar for individuals is pretty interesting. Sure big investment up front. but the long therm, can produce a payback. Large scale might take land, but honestly aside from losing farm land, there's still a great amount of open space in the US, much of that in places where farming is nearly impossible. There are also claims of birds being "zapped" or fried in flight, by the collectors.

Geothermal takes time to pay back, sounds interesting in the long term for new homes and the future. There are places using Earth energy already, Iceland is a prime example.

Everything above costs more money than it returns, (except nuclear which has no home application anyway) small wonder people who don't have that money, aren't running to install Sun, Wind or Geo energy for their homes.

The US is converting coal power plants and closing others, moving forward. You want to run your electric car, computer, lighting, and everything else? Better consider where that energy comes from, because the demand is always going up.

So called third world countries, China for one at 15% of the world economy, India at 6th, are trying to evade making changes and stopping their contributions to pollution. The US doesn't control the world or the climate, but they seem to be making the best effort to change.

CNG cars are available, I wanted to get one. Problem is no filling stations in most places and making a home compressor has regulations, permits, where you can have your own and how many thousands it costs to create one. Plus the driving distances, just like electric limits, are too short if there aren't filling locations easily available. However if someone came out with a hybrid CNG/electric I think that would put a huge dent in air pollution and carbon. I'm positive most people don't even know about CNG, except for home heating, or power plants, and how it's potentially a co2 neutral energy source for transportation.  https://www.discover-cng.com/en/key-messages/cng_the_sustainable_alternative/

Fuel locations won't add anything, until there's a demand. Pretty simple economics. Remember when most gas stations didn't have diesel? Demand and profit.

See where this is going? Without some economic payback, or financial incentive, I don't mean government handouts, I mean business, we aren't going to see change, no matter how much anyone wants change. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to pay for ending reliance on fossil fuels.

When the alternate fuel and power sources become efficient enough, they will be adopted. Until then, we are forced to be reliant on fossil fuels. I personally think we don't do enough with Natural Gas which is much cleaner than oil, coal, wood or anything else we can burn for energy.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 11:11 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2019, 14:23 »
+2
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 14:26 by tpack »

« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2019, 15:08 »
0
I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

The US has certainly done some, but it is a fact that Trump and Reagan before him are rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles.  The US would have lead the world in this after Jimmy Carter was president - he even had solar panels installed on the White House - but those were all dismantled by Reagan solely to benefit energy companies.  The use of solar and wind power in the US has occurred mostly in spite of the government rather than being aided by it, although there have been some tax credits passed that do help a lot (currently being phased out).  It is a shame that our efforts are thwarted by companies protecting their own profits at the expense of the planet.

Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

I'm not a big fan of some of the huge solar farms that take up a ton of land.  There is one visible from Joshua Trees National Park and another one near Indianapolis airport that really stick out.  But you could put solar cells on every rooftop without using an inch of additional land.  That wouldn't solve all our energy needs, but it would allow the most polluting power plants to be closed and would reduce peak demand in the summer, limiting the strain on the power grid.  Distributed solar would have many benefits, not the least of which would be tons of jobs installing all of the panels.

Yesterday I had someone over to work on my geothermal system.  It is always difficult to get geothermal experts out because it is not as popular as it should be, due to the high initial cost I assume.  I asked him what proportion of people use geothermal and he said in our area it was around 3%.  I couldn't believe it was that low.  He also said that a lot of smaller, rural power companies are making plans to tax all of their customers a certain amount and using the money to help people install geothermal loops.  The reasoning is that geothermal would reduce peak demand during the winter (and to a lesser extent during the summer) and this would lower costs to the companies so that they could reduce rates overall.  That was the first I had heard of that or the concept that spending money up front to install geothermal could lower power rates for everyone in the future.

Worries about wind turbines killing birds are overblown.  The first time I was near the base of a wind turbine I expected to see piles of dead birds, and instead I saw none.  More recent work has shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines per gigawatt of electricity produced is 20 times less than those killed by traditional power generation.  The world has plenty of potential solutions, they just need to be implemented and for that we need good governments that are not beholden to special interests.

The main reason why they had to roll back mileage requirements because it's technically not possible to achieve it today. Unless you want every car to drive like a Prius and even the Prius has reached its limits, it cannot be achieved. The weight of the vehicle is also a huge factor and hybrids gets less and less efficient with more and more weight. The max efficiency of lithium ion batteries in cars can achieve about 40-50 mpg on a regular size sedan today and that's with very careful driving. Mazda with its HCCI SkyActiv-X engine may be promising if combined with a battery, but you can only fit so much into a vehicle. Unless battery technology improves around the world, it's impossible to meet the Obama era requirements.

Here is a chart of energy breakdown:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-by-major-energy-source.png

Here is a chart of renewable energy breakdown:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-renewable-sources.png

Solar makes up a tiny portion of the renewable section. It's just not efficient, neither is geothermal. The majority of renewable energy comes from hydro-electric with wind following behind. But if you look at the overall chart, the huge majority of energy comes from fossil fuels and it's not because of just politics. It's because it's much more efficient and it's required to meet the needs of the energy grid. People driving Electric vehicles think they're completely green, but all they did was just transfer the energy production elsewhere. A power plants burns fossil fuels so people can charge their vehicles at home. The entire airline industry runs on nothing but gasoline and short of installing a nuclear reactor on every airplane, their reliance on gasoline is not going away anytime soon.

I want to see the industry make a change as well, into more environmentally friendly ways of upkeeping the powergrid. However, I will not deny the reality of the situation. We NEED fossil fuels right now and it's the main reason why governments are fighting for oil. It's the reason why China and Russia are supporting Maduro, so they can get a piece of that petrol pie in Venezuela for cheap. Sadly, it is going to run out eventually and without an alternative, we're going to be in a bad situation.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 15:18 by Minsc »

« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2019, 17:28 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?

« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2019, 19:05 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2019, 09:09 »
+2
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

No it doesn't did you read the article? NOAA explains why there are wetter storms and more snow. The tea kettle doesn't explain why the polar vortex is colder. The picture also shows a noreaster storm coming off the east coast of the US, not a polar vortex. Nothing to do with cold or cold from the pole. Read and see more snowy winters are less frequent from global warming not more frequent, except off the ocean. If you don't understand science and can't read, you are going to believe anything that supports your politics but you don't understand at all.

« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2019, 11:15 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

No it doesn't did you read the article? NOAA explains why there are wetter storms and more snow. The tea kettle doesn't explain why the polar vortex is colder. The picture also shows a noreaster storm coming off the east coast of the US, not a polar vortex. Nothing to do with cold or cold from the pole. Read and see more snowy winters are less frequent from global warming not more frequent, except off the ocean. If you don't understand science and can't read, you are going to believe anything that supports your politics but you don't understand at all.


LOL 😀

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2019, 10:48 »
0
As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up, Dr. Cohen said.

and a different climatologist says

The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless, Mass said.

 ???

Surely not all 'severe weather' constitutes cold waves, so it's possible for there to be an increase in severe weather while still having a decrease in cold spells?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2019, 11:54 »
+1
As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up, Dr. Cohen said.

and a different climatologist says

The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless, Mass said.

 ???

Surely not all 'severe weather' constitutes cold waves, so it's possible for there to be an increase in severe weather while still having a decrease in cold spells?

The point was pretty simple, one climatologist says that Winters are more sever and colder, over the last 50 years, because of global warming. While the other climatologist says, look at the data, the Winters are less cold and less sever over the last 50 years.

Assuming they are both using the same data, and neither is just making up facts for the press, one of them is wrong. Anyone can take their pick which side they like better, because we don't have the data to review and make an informed decision.

My other point was, and somewhat tongue in cheek, but some people have no sense of humor, Global Warming is making it colder...  :o

No ones words were twisted, misquoted or distorted, these two scientists disagree. Not like that hasn't happened before in any other fields. We are dealing with theories and models, and climatology is a fairly modern science. There are bound to be adjustments and contradictions. Actually the predictions, some short term and some long, keep changing because the conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Nothing unusual about that either.

Science is not all laws created from immutable facts. Science and the conclusions are flexible, able to adjust and be reformulated based on best evidence. As new discoveries and data is collected science adapts. One would expect as time goes by (Hupfeld) the climate models and theories will also adjust and change.

Short term observations, weather events, followed by the general public claiming it's climate, is terribly unscientific. With that, a cold snap doesn't disprove global warming any more  than a heat wave in the Summer in Australia is proof of global warming. Long term matters, not daily, monthly or event current annual events.

« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2019, 17:32 »
0
Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events.

I tried to explain this with the ice and glass of water example. When the icebergs melt the ocean will become colder and cold oceans make for colder winters. When all the ice melts then the water will start getting hot.

Of course the earth is not a glass of water with ice and is much more unpredictable.


lol. I giggled at the first glass of water example too.

It's like a glass of ice water, that's set on a low burner ... and is covered in greenhouse glass ... and is spinning causing a coriolis effect and the burner is actually in the middle of the glass ... and the warm water/air causes currents, sometimes very turbulent ones ... and the ice is only at the top and bottom.

I don't argue much with deniers. In the political arena I can only imagine that they have a vested interest in the use of oil and coal because I tend to believe these people to be educated and partially intelligent ... I often stand corrected.

Regardless of the timeline on global warming and whatever effect it's having on WEATHER patterns, the CLIMATE is changing at a rate that a majority of scientists believe is more rapid than it should be. Set that aside, and realize that we are in fact destroying our home ... anyone drink tap water lately? or visit the ocean? what's the air quality like where you live?

Weather/climate argument or not ... I think we can do better.

Edit: Oh, and the burner moves 23.5 degrees up from middle half the time, and 23.5 degrees below the middle half the time. And half the time the burner is closer than the other half.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 17:36 by DallasP »

« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2019, 18:32 »
+4
I haven't really been following this thread, and am surprised it has gone on this long.  Since it has gone on this long, I am simply assuming that half the people talking are complete idiots with regards to science, and thus keeping a simple conversation going.

"Global Warming" is a world-wide statistical event.  Anyone not named tRump can look at the facts and see that the 4 of the 5 warmest world-wide average temps were in the past 5 years. And that 19 or the warmest 20 years were in the last 20 years (and 50 of the last 50, if my memory is correct).  If you see those FACTS and still doubt the world is getting warmer... then there is not much to say except please go back to elementary school and start again, since you obviously slept through the your entire education.

One very clear result of global warming is NOT that it will be hotter where you are.  That is a tRump level understanding (IOW, nothing beyond 3rd grade). Rather, your local weather will most likely (not guaranteed, since weather is local and daily, while climate is global and long term) be more severe than you have seen in the latter half of the 20th century.  Cold weather will be come colder. Hot weather will become hotter. Rain will shift to new regions as the climate moves the evaporation and precipitation areas.

While you (given the focus on Polar Vortex, I am assuming US and/or Canada) were freezing, Australia has had the longest recorded heat wave and drought.  Would you feel the same way if you lived there instead?

I expect that half those in this thread will say "of course, that is obvious" while the other half will say "fake news -- Fox Entertainment didn't agree"  (there is no such thing as Fox News -- to them it is just an entertainment channel).

Regardless, I finally felt I had to say SOMETHING on this moronic thread.  No more.  I am outa here... :(

« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2019, 20:43 »
+1
I haven't really been following this thread, and am surprised it has gone on this long.  Since it has gone on this long, I am simply assuming that half the people talking are complete idiots with regards to science, and thus keeping a simple conversation going.

"Global Warming" is a world-wide statistical event.  Anyone not named tRump can look at the facts and see that the 4 of the 5 warmest world-wide average temps were in the past 5 years. And that 19 or the warmest 20 years were in the last 20 years (and 50 of the last 50, if my memory is correct).  If you see those FACTS and still doubt the world is getting warmer... then there is not much to say except please go back to elementary school and start again, since you obviously slept through the your entire education.

One very clear result of global warming is NOT that it will be hotter where you are.  That is a tRump level understanding (IOW, nothing beyond 3rd grade). Rather, your local weather will most likely (not guaranteed, since weather is local and daily, while climate is global and long term) be more severe than you have seen in the latter half of the 20th century.  Cold weather will be come colder. Hot weather will become hotter. Rain will shift to new regions as the climate moves the evaporation and precipitation areas.

While you (given the focus on Polar Vortex, I am assuming US and/or Canada) were freezing, Australia has had the longest recorded heat wave and drought.  Would you feel the same way if you lived there instead?

I expect that half those in this thread will say "of course, that is obvious" while the other half will say "fake news -- Fox Entertainment didn't agree"  (there is no such thing as Fox News -- to them it is just an entertainment channel).

Regardless, I finally felt I had to say SOMETHING on this moronic thread.  No more.  I am outa here... :(

Thanks for your rude intolerant arrogant closed minded idiot comments. If you say hot in Australia is real but ignore cold in the US, that's because you only include what fits your closed minded contrived theory. A complete idiot to science moron would say that 2 degrees above normal for the 20th century is global crisis. Or that cold will become colder and hot will become hotter. How dumb is that. Obama was President for 8 years and his laws for a couple more, and during that time, we have the 4 of 5 hottest years of all time. Your rules and laws do nothing. Models have been wrong year after year. They predict hotter and we aren't hotter, they revise with the always changing, never right predictions. Worse hurricanes and for 10 years, nothing over cat 3 made landfall. Your lies and extremist fear mongering will show who the real fools are.

« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2019, 02:42 »
+1
"during that time, we have the 4 of 5 hottest years of all time. Your rules and laws do nothing. Models have been wrong year after year. They predict hotter and we aren't hotter,"

eer OK

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2019, 15:27 »
+2
"during that time, we have the 4 of 5 hottest years of all time. Your rules and laws do nothing. Models have been wrong year after year. They predict hotter and we aren't hotter,"

eer OK

Too bad this all started friendly and has gone to personal attacks and politics, insults and name calling. I think what he meant was, it is hotter, and we all need to admit the numbers don't lie like the politics does.  :) The way that should have been presented is, the global warming predictions have been overstated, year after year, and the warming isn't as great as the models predict, so the models have been adjusted down, year after year.

Also measuring the temperature increase over the 20th Century the increase has been under 2 degrees F and 1.5 degrees C. That amount of change is not runaway heating compared to the claims or global warming.

Yes it is warmer. "According to a continuous study conducted by the NASAs Goddard institute, the Earths average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the thermometer readings have risen continuously."

On the other side, in fairness, the energy it takes to warm the entire plant and all that water 1 degree, is quite a bit. The baseline is since the industrial revolution, because we don't have records or measurements before 1880. And even with that, there are reasonable questions about where the measurements were taken, the accuracy of the instruments and other uncontrolled variables, which would lead to a higher degree of error in old readings, vs the new.

I'd say the first person, company, country, who can come up with a real solution will be wealthy beyond all the oil and coal producers in all the time they have been mining and drilling for fossil fuels. We just aren't there yet.

The question to me isn't dwelling on what's wrong and weak human laws or useless attempts to change the climate with taxes and restrictions, but instead is concentrating on how to make energy that doesn't pollute and doesn't depend on fossil fuels, dirty burning or anything else harmful. We already know what the problem is, lets stop wasting time on arguing if it's real or not. We know the problem is real.

Now find the causes with science, not guessing. Because right now the logic is, we don't know of anything else, so it must be humans. Yes that's the science behind, why there's only one answer, because we can't find any others. Pretty illogical in the long run? Also consider that the planet naturally goes through warmer and cooler periods, a number of ice ages and we are on the upside of the end of the last ice age. It could be all natural. Look at the large long picture. But still pollution needs to be wiped out.

But back to, lets work on solutions, not arguing causes, or effects, or politics. And lets stop funding away billion on proving something exists when the reality is, it's plain as day, the planet is getting warmer.

How do we stop that? That's the question? And the answer is stop polluting, stop burning fossil fuels. How do we do that?

Find an alternate energy source. All the time, investment and grants should go to finding alternate energy sources that can replace fossil fuels. Not politically motivated waste of time, committees, treaties, restrictions and useless measures that change nothing, as long as most of the planet is going to burn coal and oil and shoot waste into the air.

There it is:  Find an alternate energy source.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 15:31 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2019, 10:23 »
0
One of the best, easiest and healthiest things you can do for the planet and yourself is to cut back on meat and dairy. If we cut our consumption of meat and dairy by 50% we'd exceed our goals for reducing emissions. That would take us back to the amount we were eating 50 years ago. Animal agriculture is a main driver of climate change, deforestation and mass extinction.

Almost missed yours all we need to do is cut meat and dairy and we could turn the warming around. Lets get started with rationing and food control to do this. How does this work on Paleo diet plan.

« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2019, 15:57 »
+1
The average plebs/prole always has near zero understanding of science, so it (and most other things) will always be a just a new religion to them, with 'scientists' as priests. One difference is that even in christian religion only the Pope was 'infallible', but your average climate fighter will assume that infallibility to basically all/any scientist who ever says anything according to the narrative, so they go way further than any oldschool religious bigot. The icing is on the cake is that these are the people who also tend to bash religions at every opportunity as something dumb and out-of-date. Best example of how pants-on-head dumb their view science is how they jump on to bash and call out anyone who questions the latest 'scientific revelations' as some kind of anti science hillbilly ... which is the exact opposite of the scientific attitude. For them being dogmatic = being scientific and vice versa. Mindblowing. This attitude is why you can sell them terms like "climate change" which makes as much sense as "blowing wind". Or how warming causes both warming and cooling and cold and hot weather and dry and wet... Even a smarter 6th grader should be able to figure out after a couple of times how this is just that well known favorite, amazing logical construct of dictators and alcoholic fathers "everything happens because of what I tell you"   :) 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4924 Views
Last post October 26, 2006, 16:48
by a.k.a.-tom
IE7 Patch causing FTP failures

Started by zymmetricaldotcom Zymmetrical.com

0 Replies
1941 Views
Last post December 07, 2007, 07:20
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
1563 Views
Last post August 07, 2008, 10:37
by Whiz
7 Replies
3537 Views
Last post August 19, 2010, 19:07
by FD
16 Replies
3197 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 22:44
by stockmarketer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results