pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Global Warming is causing the Polar Vortex ???  (Read 6543 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5160 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
2073 Views
Last post December 07, 2007, 07:20
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
1717 Views
Last post August 07, 2008, 10:37
by Whiz
7 Replies
3733 Views
Last post August 19, 2010, 19:07
by FD
16 Replies
3412 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 22:44
by stockmarketer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results