General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 12:04:51 PM
Title: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 12:04:51 PM
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 12:27:33 PM
The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops. Quit whining, cope. Neanderthals coped better than the radical climate changers, makes ya wonder if a big die-off of whiny government-dependent progressives unable to cope with natural global heating and cooling cycles might be a good thing.
PS: The last time it was dramatically warmer on earth, when they were growing crops on Greenland, the polar bears did just fine. Try facts and geologic record instead of emotional blabbering if you want some ideas about what to do when things warm up a bit. And maybe keep a spare jacket handy for the next cold cycle.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: caldera on September 27, 2015, 12:28:42 PM
The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops. Quit whining, cope. Neanderthals coped better than the radical climate changers, makes ya wonder if a big die-off of whiny government-dependent progressives unable to cope with natural global heating and cooling cycles might be a good thing.
PS: The last time it was dramatically warmer on earth, when they were growing crops on Greenland, the polar bears did just fine. Try facts and geologic record instead of emotional blabbering if you want some ideas about what to do when things warm up a bit. And maybe keep a spare jacket handy for the next cold cycle.
:aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 12:38:07 PM
I almost forgot... The climate change induced migration has already started, with the smart (coincidentally conservative) Californians migrating out of Calif to places like Texas and places that aren't in a drought. That's what Humans do, its our thing. Cope instead of laying down and dying in our own filthy misery whining about how unfair things are. Well, that's what some Humans do anyhow. Some try to "fix" things by making laws to spend other people's money on things that can't possibly change what nature is going to do next.
Of course, I will note that the California drought did coincide with a statewide effort to get signatures on petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide, the leading transport agent of man-made toxins, and present in huge amounts in every child born with a birth defect... Looks like the petition was at least partially successful in banning that particular toxic chemical. Did you know some people actually *purify* dihydrogen monoxide in their homes, and don't even realize what it does? Get educated people!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Citabria on September 27, 2015, 12:56:30 PM
eagl your my hero.
If only it were possible to remove dihydrogen monoxide completely from the world we would all be much safer.
would it be possible to freeze it?
I personally feel I have been completely contaminated with dihydrogen monoxide and do not know how to heal myself as there is no known cure for dihydrogen monoxide exposure.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
There needs to be a total revamp of emission's across the globe U.S. to China and a total rewrite of how people spend their money be it on iphones computers or other technology that once is used gets thrown into a landfill... Anyone arguing that there is not a problem is just ignorant at this point...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Bizman on September 27, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops.
Oh yes? What if the warming alters the ocean currents? Slowing the Gulf Stream would actually make Europe a cooler place to live in, not to mention that the sea level at the East Coast of USA would rise. I agree, the polar bears might have done just fine at the time they grew crops on Greenland. Also the Neanderthals might have done well. There's one aspect you didn't mention: There were no big cities at that time, people simply moved along the changes in climate. Some sources say that 8 inches higher sea level would cause big issues on Manhattan, where there's more people living than the entire Neanderthal time population was. The nature will survive. The big question is, will the human race survive.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 27, 2015, 02:07:02 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 02:11:17 PM
Thing is, the warmers are totally ignoring fossil records that show a biodiversity explosion every time the global temperature rises or CO2 naturally rises. Its all doom and gloom.
I think there certainly could be more done to reduce man made pollution, but I am convinced that the warmer's crusade is distracting everyone from making any progress towards real improvements in *pollution* control. CO2 is a byproduct of respiration and its also plant food, so classifying that as pollution the same as, say, a mercury spill, is harming the entire environmental movement.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MiloMorai on September 27, 2015, 02:20:53 PM
The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops. Quit whining, cope. Neanderthals coped better than the radical climate changers, makes ya wonder if a big die-off of whiny government-dependent progressives unable to cope with natural global heating and cooling cycles might be a good thing.
PS: The last time it was dramatically warmer on earth, when they were growing crops on Greenland, the polar bears did just fine. Try facts and geologic record instead of emotional blabbering if you want some ideas about what to do when things warm up a bit. And maybe keep a spare jacket handy for the next cold cycle.
The ice helps moderate the climate.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 27, 2015, 02:21:58 PM
co2 is a limiting factor for the most important enzyme in the world, rubisco. this in because the toxin o2 has such a similar structure. Some tropical plants can overcome the co2 limitation using c4 carbon cycling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
When kids start telling us to burn H2O in place of long chain carbons, watch out.
It would be nice if humans could solve their energy problem by understanding the natural word and using it safely. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 02:27:44 PM
How about landfills we're building mountains of them around us, eventually they will overtake us won't they...?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 02:38:04 PM
How about landfills we're building mountains of them around us, eventually they will overtake us won't they...?
2 things. First, that's got everything to do with "environmental conservation" and nothing to do with "the global warming is the suxxors!" Second, in a couple hundred years they'll change the name of all the landfills to "resource reclamation mines", as they dig back through all that trash to find all the rare natural resources we're putting in them now. Most people have no freaking idea how bad it is for the environment to make strong magnets, for example, yet we think nothing about tossing them in the trash. Same goes for batteries. How many cities have battery bins go with the glass, plastic, and paper bins during weekly trash pickup? I don't think any of them do. Even San Francisco hasn't figured out how to safely do residential trash service pickup of fluorescent lightbulbs. So instead of taking the 10 minute walk to the community recycle facility (or like here in Vegas, the 60 minute trip to the centralized recycle facility), people toss them in the trash. In a few thousand years, I'm confident that we'll need to dig that stuff back up and re-use it so it'll actually be really helpful that we're concentrating all that stuff in landfills.
But that's thinking really long term. For most warmers, the world's climate was created the day that stupid hockey stick diagram was released and can't look any farther forward than the next (hopefully horrible) hurricane season that they are praying will kill lots of people so they can be used as examples of why warming is the d3viL.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: helbent on September 27, 2015, 03:06:31 PM
So much to say and rebut, but I would rather just slap you up side the head and pray that you wake up.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on September 27, 2015, 03:24:25 PM
The largest ice sheet in the world is growing, and was growing back when it was reported to be shrinking. Since it's in Antarctica we don't have to worry. :D
Big money in carbon credits. :banana:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 27, 2015, 03:33:06 PM
The arctics ice has been growing for a month. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Get ready for winter!
Radiational cooling is a squeak , when they build something to block the sun for a day, get your coats!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: 100Coogn on September 27, 2015, 03:43:47 PM
There needs to be a total revamp of emission's across the globe U.S. to China and a total rewrite of how people spend their money be it on iphones computers or other technology that once is used gets thrown into a landfill... Anyone arguing that there is not a problem is just ignorant at this point...
So you basicly want to enslave the world to your idea of a perfection?
The climate changes, it always has, it always will, the perfect exercise in futility is to think you can alter it on a global scale!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
ok how about our landfills, they keep growing and growing pretty soon we'll be living on them, I don't know about you but I think there are better ways
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: 100Coogn on September 27, 2015, 04:39:20 PM
ok how about our landfills, they keep growing and growing pretty soon we'll be living on them, I don't know about you but I think there are better ways
People keep dying too. Will we all live on cemeteries as well? :headscratch:
Coogan
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 04:40:43 PM
There is a legit mountain of trash in the northern section of the city I live in, it's since been closed cuz it's so fricken huge and now all the trash is going elsewhere... it's sad that this is the way we live... it's not sustainable
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
See Rule #6
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 04:43:37 PM
ok how about our landfills, they keep growing and growing pretty soon we'll be living on them, I don't know about you but I think there are better ways
You already asked that question. It has nothing to do with global warming and eventually we'll be mining those landfills for resources. There is plenty of room for government regulation to reduce toxic environmental contamination but all that governmental power is currently being wasted chasing carbon credits instead of decreasing real pollution. Want to cut pollution in a HUGE way? Regulate the importation of rare earth metals and magnets from countries that don't properly contain the highly toxic by-products from magnet production. That would be trivial to implement and cut a huge amount of pollution, but it isn't nearly as popular as beating the warmist drum so efforts that might actually help *save the planet* get no support. That's one of the huge tragedies of the warmer crusade, the loss of focus on pollution control efforts that might actually help something.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on September 27, 2015, 04:44:35 PM
The powers that be a rubbing thier hands with glee when they swapped from oil production to a economy based on climate change.
Have you paid your ICE tax you will be :rofl
In the middle ages you paid priests so you got to heaven :rofl
The egyptians built useless pyramids that kept a whole society in work :rofl
In the 20th century we had wars to transfer wealth :rofl
In the 21st its going to be defense against refugees and climate change :rofl
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 05:10:42 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on September 27, 2015, 05:13:19 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Skyyr on September 27, 2015, 05:15:23 PM
Nicely put, eagl.
To add, someone that can't spell correctly (despite having access to all sorts of neat things like auto-correct) likely doesn't have enough attention to detail to have correctly done the research to vet for themselves what they claim they believe.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 05:17:04 PM
And that's some of the biggest damage being caused by the warmist crusaders. Someone like me who isn't in the warmist camp will say "I disagree with you, and here is why". Someone in the warmist camp says "You don't agree with me so therefore you are evil and are trying to destroy the planet". The warmist groups are providing "proof by repeated assertion", and justifying their blockheaded approach by portraying anyone who doesn't jump on their bandwagon as some evil devil spawn intent on destroying mankind and the planet. That isn't a debate, that's the tantrum thrown by a child.
So we are not warming the planet by billions of cars and industry blowing smoke daily? Thats new I'll give you that
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 05:20:56 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: cpxxx on September 27, 2015, 05:35:41 PM
Totally with Eagl on this. I do think climate change is happening. We will adapt though. I am absolutely convinced though that our input has been exaggerated and we cannot do anything to reverse it.
Here in Ireland, we've had a terrible summer. Yes I hear you say Ireland always has a terrible summer. It's a cliché. But really this one was bad. But meanwhile over in England it was hot, very hot as I'm sure Zack will confirm. Same with most of continental Europe. The weather people here explained it simply. There's a cold area of the ocean between Greenland and Iceland where much of our weather crosses. So it never warmed up this summer, dammit. Yet the rest of Europe was hot and dry. It met the proper cliché of the warming planet.
But we were cold and wet all summer.
Whatever the reasons for all this. It is hubris to think we can reverse anything. Sometimes I think humans believe they are God. We can do anything. In reality we are nothing, mere flies on the surface of the Earth. The Earth doesn't need us, if anything we're a parasite on it's surface.
We just need to adapt to survive. Simple as that.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 27, 2015, 06:29:28 PM
Hey are you guy talking about my spelling? I'd guess one is ignoring the fact with a insult and the other to smart for his bellybutton hole. If yous care about people you would respect them buts that's none of my bussnies . Its your life. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Peanut1 on September 27, 2015, 06:44:00 PM
See Rule #6
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Gman on September 27, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
No rare earth magnets?! Wth, what will the Chinese use to hold the canopies on my R/C aircraft from now on?
Speaking of Chinese, everyone in the West involved in the warmer movement always conveniently refuses to discuss China. Having lived there (Hong Kong, but close enough, and I did spend 2 months on the Mainland overall), and this was nearly 20 years ago now, I can attest to the mainland being a giant garbage dump, pretty much everywhere you looked, and don't even get started on the air pollution. We in the western world could run 100% solar, wind, be 100% Green Party approved recyclers, and all drive electric cars, and IMO it wouldn't even make a dent in the overall footprint of global warming/pollution/etc if China refuses to do anything, which has been and continues to be the case.
What's the point of bankrupting the west trying to reach emission and other targets when the largest dirtiest polluter, which is just getting worse, refuses to do anything? Pointless. Do even a quick bit of research on Chinese regarding emissions and pollutants, what they put into the atmosphere, as well as the water table, makes the worst place in the West look as clean as an operating room.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Gman on September 27, 2015, 07:02:53 PM
Quote
Totally with Eagl on this. I do think climate change is happening. We will adapt though. I am absolutely convinced though that our input has been exaggerated and we cannot do anything to reverse it.
Here in Ireland, we've had a terrible summer. Yes I hear you say Ireland always has a terrible summer. It's a cliché. But really this one was bad. But meanwhile over in England it was hot, very hot as I'm sure Zack will confirm. Same with most of continental Europe. The weather people here explained it simply. There's a cold area of the ocean between Greenland and Iceland where much of our weather crosses. So it never warmed up this summer, dammit. Yet the rest of Europe was hot and dry. It met the proper cliché of the warming planet.
But we were cold and wet all summer.
Whatever the reasons for all this. It is hubris to think we can reverse anything. Sometimes I think humans believe they are God. We can do anything. In reality we are nothing, mere flies on the surface of the Earth. The Earth doesn't need us, if anything we're a parasite on it's surface.
We just need to adapt to survive. Simple as that.
Agree with Eagl and agree with this.
Here in Canada, the last several winters have been brutally cold in many parts - where is the MMGW when it's -60 with the windchill for weeks on end I ask? Or the snow and cold snaps in the US east coast in the last couple years? Lots of warmness there to be sure.
And, as many have stated, even IF there is change happening, how can it be proven to be caused by anything man has done? And even it could be, I again use the Chinese example as to why bankrupting companies and nations over trying to reach "targets" is pretty pointless and stupid.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 27, 2015, 07:24:19 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mar on September 27, 2015, 07:27:29 PM
Zack rules. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on September 27, 2015, 07:35:21 PM
The powers that be a rubbing thier hands with glee when they swapped from oil production to a economy based on climate change.
Have you paid your ICE tax you will be :rofl
In the middle ages you paid priests so you got to heaven :rofl
The egyptians built useless pyramids that kept a whole society in work :rofl
In the 20th century we had wars to transfer wealth :rofl
In the 21st its going to be defense against refugees and climate change :rofl
the current administration and the spoiled culture will continue to attack the farmer. i call ignorance but gd i think its simply a bunch of righteous buffoons. potatoes are grown in the desert for sun and weeds dont exist. yeah that sounds silly doesnt it. :bhead
Zack we need you to straiten the illuminaty, (cough) banks, im working on the people. :airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 27, 2015, 10:13:16 PM
No rare earth magnets?! Wth, what will the Chinese use to hold the canopies on my R/C aircraft from now on?
Speaking of Chinese, everyone in the West involved in the warmer movement always conveniently refuses to discuss China. Having lived there (Hong Kong, but close enough, and I did spend 2 months on the Mainland overall), and this was nearly 20 years ago now, I can attest to the mainland being a giant garbage dump, pretty much everywhere you looked, and don't even get started on the air pollution. We in the western world could run 100% solar, wind, be 100% Green Party approved recyclers, and all drive electric cars, and IMO it wouldn't even make a dent in the overall footprint of global warming/pollution/etc if China refuses to do anything, which has been and continues to be the case.
What's the point of bankrupting the west trying to reach emission and other targets when the largest dirtiest polluter, which is just getting worse, refuses to do anything? Pointless. Do even a quick bit of research on Chinese regarding emissions and pollutants, what they put into the atmosphere, as well as the water table, makes the worst place in the West look as clean as an operating room.
Bankrupting the West is the point. Envirowackos hate that we have so much more of everything than poor countries and want to knock us down a bunch of pegs for "social justice". To them we are using more than our "fair share" (they are the sole judge of what that is) and want everyone in the world equally poor and miserable. That's why they want us to pay poor countries as punishment for our success.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: saggs on September 28, 2015, 12:26:13 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: saggs on September 28, 2015, 12:43:19 AM
How about landfills we're building mountains of them around us, eventually they will overtake us won't they...?
:rofl
That is the most hilarious thing I have read in a long time. The word does not work like a Shel Silverstein poem.. ...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on September 28, 2015, 01:28:40 AM
I bought a GTS Vespa and its still sunny still in the UK :rofl
Flippen brass monkeys at night, put 3 logs on my burner , the horror had two brandys.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 28, 2015, 06:30:22 AM
Fine you guys win, warm up the planet as we have no other option, and keep on filling the landfills, so we can mine them for gold later lol... If I said the planet was round you'd probably argue that it was flat
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on September 28, 2015, 06:55:42 AM
It is flat :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: mbailey on September 28, 2015, 07:03:41 AM
Humans could no more stop the climate from changing than they could stop earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanoes from happening. It's called nature, disasters happen, and the climate on this planet has never been a constant. Millions of years ago most of the world was a tropical forest, 10,000 years ago most of the world was covered in ice.
How come as humans we have decided that after having an ever changing and dymanic climate for hundreds of millions of years, now all of a sudden it must be static? Human civilization is just a blip of time in the history of our ever changing planet, but for some reason we expect geological and climate changes that happen in cycles of tens of thousands and millions of years to stop just for our convenience.
:aok
The day will come when Mother Earth thru her natural climate cycles/ geological changes will shake us off her back like fleas from a dog.....We will adapt, or go extinct.... We're no better than the hundreds of millions of other life forms here that have disappeared as a result of natural occurances. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps to keep her clean, if only out of respect and thoughtfulness for future generations.....IMHO the climate change argument is just 2 agendas trying to bang their heads against each other, each hoping for a favorable outcome to their agenda......us fleas hubris Has no ceiling
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mitchell on September 28, 2015, 07:43:36 AM
I love history and geology, which is why it pains me to see "scientists" use such tiny time scales as a few decades to scare people.
Try looking back to the last ice age, or the 800 thousand years of data from antarctic ice cores, or the hot period that gave us dinosaurs, or even the "snowball earth" event who's end marked the development of more complex life on earth.
We are an insignificant blip in the total history of the earth and long before us the earth warmed and cooled by huge margins.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MrKrabs on September 28, 2015, 08:04:28 AM
The crabs will take over the Earth!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on September 28, 2015, 08:40:04 AM
Pipz had crabs :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chilli on September 28, 2015, 08:49:54 AM
Only after it has all been submerged.... and even then sharks will reign another 6 billion years. So don't hold your breath Mr. ....... ummm I mean hold your water :headscratch:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 09:18:34 AM
About that ice extent thingie... You need to understand a couple of things, before you get all breathless about it - and I'll cite, below.
1. It's the fourth lowest in the satellite record. 2. The satellite record goes back to 1979. 3. Antarctic extent is at record levels. 4. The minimum was hit four days earlier this year than last. 5. The sea ice extent is NOT at an historical low, either in the satellite record or as evidenced by the previously cited revelation of millennial optimum settlements... 6. 1979-2015 is a period of about 36 years and so constitutes but a tiny sample of the actual record. It might reveal, thus, something abou high freq variation but is unlikely to be a good indicator of low freq variation.
All that said, I've got some high ground you can buy, for you, priced like beachfront. Don't MISS OUT on this REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY that will CATAPULT YOU into a place of UNTOLD WEALTH AND FAME!!! HOT CHICKS!!!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 28, 2015, 09:24:31 AM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 09:38:11 AM
So, which part of the National Snow and Ice Data Center findings do you dispute? This is about the science, not somebodies feeeeelings, right?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 28, 2015, 09:43:38 AM
It has already been posted, and secondly where is the trend going?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 28, 2015, 09:56:22 AM
Right now sea ice is growing on both poles but don't take my word for it....
Lol thanks Lamar!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 28, 2015, 09:57:54 AM
You're a reading rainbow natcigg
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 10:03:16 AM
The trend in the antarctic, as I cited, is one of increase. The trend in the arctic is less clear. Last year, there was near-record recovery and the beginning of the recovery this year is starting sooner - but, again, this period is very short, and thus, trying to extrapolate a long-term trend from 36 years of data is unwise.
Meanwhile, a lot of warmists are puzzled by the last couple of years of recovery and the surface temp pause of the last 16 years. They don't understand why the ice area is not monotonically decreasing and are looking for the lost heat. Some of their theories are reaching a bit - for example, an hypothesis that the recovered area is less massive (ie, a depth/thickness decrease) or that the heat is hiding deep in the oceans or that more of it has bounced out to space etc. or that the whole theory was bad and solar irradiance rules (see the Russian climatological experts for that one).
In short, there are a number of competing theories and explanations out there and, when the theory and data match and when the theory proves itself to have predictive and correlative value, THEN the science will be settled.
That's the process: hypothesize and test.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: craz07 on September 28, 2015, 10:06:53 AM
There's no one living in the antartic... they're all in the areas where the global temperature is rising so what good is what you just said...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Someguy63 on September 28, 2015, 10:12:40 AM
We can't change the fact that Earth has a cycle of climate change that happens over 100,000 year periods but we can sure change the fact that we've kind of sped it up way too much. If we work to reduce the amount of emissions we can stop it.
Mind you emissions aren't the only pollution problem we have. There is another really big one out there.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 28, 2015, 10:20:24 AM
I've got a plan. Plant one billion trees a year and harvest the crop every 30 years. Better yet thin the federal land to limit fire fuel and grow big trees. Then harvest those every 100 years. Wahoo were getting some where. Oh wait electricity, our Achilles heal.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 10:23:18 AM
There's no one living in the antartic... they're all in the areas where the global temperature is rising so what good is what you just said...
:O
Maybe you're not familiar with the theory the IPCC has been working on... The one where atmospheric CO2 levels supposedly decrease the capacity of the earth to shed heat? It wouldn't be a localized phenomenon - and it doesn't correlate anyway, nor has it been shown to have predictive capability, so you're good there.
If you're really concerned about micro-climates, you'd want to leave the cities, because there's a known heat island effect there.
Also, nobody lives in the North Pole either, and the dist of surface temp readings around the globe says surface temps haven't been increasing since about '99. So you're still good everywhere else. :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on September 28, 2015, 10:40:05 AM
Luckily the whole world is setting up big energy efforts to reduce the emissions by humans, which I think is a great idea. Oil and Coal are exactly what they are, Archaic. Until other forms of energy really begin to make an impact, the oil industry will continue to control the markets. However, the oil industry is slowly dying along with the burning of coal. If these 2 forms of energy become outdated then we will start to see a cleaner impact on the earth. That doesn't stop the earth from doing what it wants. We could still go trough cycles of warming and cooling like we have been for the past 10,000 years. Luckily, the earth has been stable enough for this not to cause a major impact in our society today. Places like China are a big problem and really needs to work on their emissions. China is the worst pollutant in the world and you can see how nasty that life can be if it gets out of hand. We don't need our people growing and living through such smog.
Also, Volcano eruptions like the one recently in Chili is a great example of how no matter how hard you try, the earth will always spew trillions of chemical compounds into the atmosphere at any given time and there is nothing you can do about it. The crazy part is, the earth is soo large it broke down those compounds and we still didn't see any effects of the volcano here in America.
The Humans only emit about 6% of the total C02 count into the atmosphere. While you could say this 6% is keeping our planet warm or "adding to the problem", it is still a relatively low amount considering the size of the earth. That volcano spewed out more chemicals in the days it erupted than all of the emissions by humans combined in South America in the last 30 years. While humans can do whatever they can to reduce the emissions. We cannot undermine the earth in what it is capable of doing.
Also Craz, I think landfills will start to shrink as the technology to burn trash is becoming better and better. Look at how Sweden has dealt with the trash problem. They actually buy trash from other countries to burn for energy. Sweden has virtually no trash landfills. IMO that will become a future energy source around the whole world.
Oil still has such a large impact on the world. look at how it is effecting the stock market right now. There is no way we could simply stop the production of oil tomorrow, however, other energy sources are starting to make oil out dated and in the next 15 years oil may not be as big as it once was. This would go a long way into making the earth a cleaner place to live.
All in all we have seen how emissions can cause much smog and nastiness by looking at China and now we can see that it is not a great society to live and breath in. Hopefully we can do our best to reduce the emissions all over the world so that the sky atmosphere is cleaner, but humans most likely wont control the global temperatures and the earth is full of surprises that we cannot control.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 10:45:25 AM
Been there - not pleasant. You're also correct about ours, and CO2's, place on the Pareto chart.
I'd also note that a lot of companies tied to fossil fuel production or dependent on its output (mine included) are keeping a solid foot in research, trying to find its replacement. After all, build a better mousetrap...
BP partnered with us on our Hydrogen work. Not sure if they still do, having left the alt fuels arena.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MiloMorai on September 28, 2015, 11:02:40 AM
Oil also has other uses besides burning it a fuel. I would hazard a guess and say these other uses consume more than as a fuel.
Mining of trash (recycling) will become more prevalent.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on September 28, 2015, 11:12:38 AM
Mining of trash is a bad idea, look at all those ET games they found. You cant get rid of those horrid things no matter how hard you try
Four words: Billy Ray Cyrus disks...
Can they be reconstituted? If not, the future looks pretty bleak indeed, especially if one of the arscheklownen digging up the junk manages to find a CD player. It's bad enough he left us the piglet. Not that piglets don't have an occasional "hold 'em down by the back of the neck and make 'em squeal BUT GOOD" types of uses.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on September 28, 2015, 12:56:37 PM
Global warming is nonesense :old:
We are weaning our selves from oil :old:
So the Arabs are left with sand and camel turds :old:
Global warming is the new oil and your going to pay taxes.
Everyone knows solar power in the wastelands of the world can solve energy problems :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 01:10:13 PM
So the Arabs are left with sand and camel turds :old:
:old:
I guess I'd be okay with this, Zack, but only so long as I can hold one of them down by the neck and really make them squeal.
Regarding means and ends, I tend to prioritize the latter, so long as what it's attached to can squeal.
Mind, fettling a pie can be well and good, especially in this political season and at a time when people need to blow off a little... steam, perhaps. You see, we're soon to be in full swing election-mode here in this outsized colony. My theory, if the election were held today, most people would be confused, since it's expected to be held in November of '16. Regardless, if the US erection were actually held today, I suspect there would be a good deal of participation at the poles, given the general lack of satisfaction. I note that one of my state reps is named Randy Richardville. How can you not vote for Randy? Wouldn't you like to put Randy in orifi, er... office? I wonder how it feels to be Randy, and see your poll rising, knowing you're on the verge of overcoming your opponent?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on September 28, 2015, 02:41:36 PM
I saw a news article recently where they said the arctic ice cap was growing based on very short term data regarding seasonal ice spread. :rofl
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: jimson on September 28, 2015, 02:46:01 PM
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
You are under 30 aren't you?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mickey1992 on September 28, 2015, 03:37:37 PM
It amazes me how the UN and IPCC want to dictate the world economy based on 40 years of climate data. When that is almost the exact length of the Sun's activity cycles.
I think we are less than a decade away from a major milestone in fusion, and maybe two decades away from commercialization. It will be a game-changer.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Aspen on September 28, 2015, 04:29:33 PM
For all you that deny that man is changing the climate, I hope you are happy when we kill the earth. It was bad enough that we killed all the dinosaurs just so that some day when they turned into oil a few people could get rich. Don't even try and tell me that the ice caps today are giant compared to how small they were at different times in the earth's history. Even if thats true, they probably shrank back then due to cavemen burning T-Rex dung.
I'm sending an extra check to Al Gore this month. At least I will fry knowing I did the right thing.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Someguy63 on September 28, 2015, 06:23:42 PM
It amazes me how many don't think that global warming is a myth.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: mbailey on September 28, 2015, 06:25:08 PM
Fine you guys win, warm up the planet as we have no other option, and keep on filling the landfills, so we can mine them for gold later lol... If I said the planet was round you'd probably argue that it was flat
Let me ask you one question.
What is the RIGHT temperature for the earth? In the 70's we were warned of impending doom from global cooling. In the 90's it was global warming. Now it's just called climate change.
So who decided that the temperature at this blip of time (geologically speaking) when human civilization rose, is the RIGHT temperature, and that we cannot allow it to deviate?
How come the global temperatures in the pre-Cambrian era are not the right temps? Or maybe the RIGHT temperature was during the Jurassic or Cretaceous periods. Or maybe the RIGHT temperature was only a mere 12,000 years ago during the last ice age.
Please enlighten me. What is the RIGHT temperature for earth?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 09:57:21 PM
Please enlighten me. What is the RIGHT temperature for earth?
That's an easy one, Saggs. It's whatever temp "we" could achieve by nullifying your liberties and looting you out... I.e., you know as well as I that it's merely a pretext for control.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on September 28, 2015, 10:04:34 PM
Have you guys noticed that global warming proponents are also usually proponents of evolution? (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/media/poi/images/BillNye-300-md.jpg) (http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson.jpg)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Scherf on September 28, 2015, 10:10:09 PM
I'd assume the earth itself doesn't give a flying fig whether it's a snowball or a single warm ocean, question is what's the right temperature for contemporary homo sapiens - the places we live, the things we eat and how we want to progress.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 28, 2015, 10:37:25 PM
1. I'm better qualified than Nye. He has a mere bse and his main work experience is unserious. 2. I'm part of the consensus ( temp has changed slightly and humans have some minor effect, eg heat islands), even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases. How? The bar for "agreement" is set very low, as you'll see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/) 3. A more truthful read says the scientific community is divided on the matter, especially within climate science itself.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 28, 2015, 11:47:39 PM
So when all the ice is gone and the seas rise 250 ft what will the entire world do. All of the world will be affected so its everyone's problem. Also, the two large areas of land based ice have been depressed from the weight of the ice (see the great lakes) so I ask will Greenland and Antarctica have inland seas or fresh water lake? Its going to be dam cold there either way, its hard to stay warm in the dark, and antarticas place within in global currents isolates itself, oh and its a desert???
Bill nye the science guy. Bill Bill Bill Bill :banana:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on September 29, 2015, 12:04:03 AM
The best part of fake problems is the probable success of fake solutions.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: mbailey on September 29, 2015, 05:10:54 AM
M. Bailey, thank you for writing what I was thinking. You'lll notice I was a good deal more diplomatic.
LOL yes I noticed that, well done sir. If you run for public office, you have my vote :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 29, 2015, 08:57:37 AM
More On (pun intended) Bill Nye: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-proves-bill-nyes-faked-greenhouse.html (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-proves-bill-nyes-faked-greenhouse.html)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: -ammo- on September 29, 2015, 01:12:50 PM
Good to see the Conservatives stepping up and debunking the horse shaat of the lefties. <S> Eagl, Caldera, and the rest
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Someguy63 on September 29, 2015, 01:51:12 PM
:mad:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 29, 2015, 02:07:54 PM
Of course, I will note that the California drought did coincide with a statewide effort to get signatures on petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide, the leading transport agent of man-made toxins, and present in huge amounts in every child born with a birth defect... Looks like the petition was at least partially successful in banning that particular toxic chemical. Did you know some people actually *purify* dihydrogen monoxide in their homes, and don't even realize what it does? Get educated people!
Man learned to reliably produce potable water some time before 4000 BC and has been doing so thus for better than 6000 years.
It took Californian leftists about 20 years or so to make it economically undesirable to do so.
Progress?
It was even worse than that, Eagl. For example, the State, for the sake of a small darter fish, allows some 400 million gallons of fresh water to be exhausted to the SF Bay every year. It has, additionally failed to permit the construction of any additonal catchment reservoirs since the 1980's.
It's a wonder they still have power, since they also have failed to add to the grid in that time.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on September 29, 2015, 04:30:19 PM
For goodness sake why haven't you guys updated the wikipedia page?
Man learned to reliably produce potable water some time before 4000 BC and has been doing so thus for better than 6000 years.
It took Californian leftists about 20 years or so to make it economically undesirable to do so.
Progress?
It was even worse than that, Eagl. For example, the State, for the sake of a small darter fish, allows some 400 million gallons of fresh water to be exhausted to the SF Bay every year. It has, additionally failed to permit the construction of any additonal catchment reservoirs since the 1980's.
It's a wonder they still have power, since they also have failed to add to the grid in that time.
California for all purposes is a single party state. Most of that party's leadership lives in and around the City of Los Angeles while controlling the state's water and power utilities. And relationships with the federal government for federal funds and initiatives.
1. - 60% of the California population lives in and around L.A. 2. - 60% of the natural water in California occurs in NorCal. 3. - Farmers in the imperial valley are growing alfalfa and exporting it to China and the middle east. Their water comes from the Colorado River which means during a drought California is exporting about 1b feet of water out of the west locked up in plant cells. The Imperial Valley voted for Moonbeam by a very large margin. Central valley farmers, many of them live in districts represented by the opposition party, and are going out of business because their water has been cut off. Those with ground water rights older than California, are being told they no longer own their wells. And are in opposition party districts. 4. - San Diego is about to cut itself off from the water issue by building a $1b Desalinization plant which comes on line in 2016. Naturally the rest of California tried every way possible to stop them for "environmental reasons ;)". 5. - Governor Moonbeam's high speed rail project funds could build desalinization plants for L.A. and S.F. 6. - The Delta Smelt may be a smoke screen for Governor Moonbeam's $60b project to bore tunnels to bring in more water from the head of the Sacramento river to SoCal. The smelt allows Moonbeam to cut off the valley water which the federal government controls the actual spigot, to the valley farmers exacerbating a natural drought. Moonbeam looks like a victim of the endangered species act just like his state's farmers so he gets his $60b water rescue project for the "state", errr SoCal. Instead of building more dams and catchments to store water from good years, the tunnels just drain existing water faster to SoCal. On average these California droughts last 4-5 years every other 5-6 years. In the last 60 years the state population has grown without any growth in dams and water catchment. SoCal has reached the point that it can suck dry the state water storage in 4 years along with impacting the state aquifers which take decades to replenish.
Welcome to Stupidfornia, a glimpse at any country run by ideological brethren of Governor Moonbeam and our current White House resident. Oh ,and Mr. resident refused to turn the federally controlled spigot on that is helping Moonbeam push his tunnels that will mean union jobs in Stupidfornia. And the Carlsbad CA, desalinization plant is owned by the County of Sand Diego, out of the hands of the Moonbeam ideological brethren controlled California water commission on purpose. 60% of the population of Stupidfornia lives in and around Los Angeles and votes 80% Stupid. Sand Diego would never see any of the water they paid $1b to create if the water commission controlled the output because they mostly don't vote Stupid in San Diego county.
Never politically allow a good natural or other disaster go to waste.
They noted that this giant project will cost California tax and ratepayers between $15 and $60 billion — "one of California’s largest public investments to date." And there will be no public vote, unlike in 1982 when the voters turned down the original peripheral tunnel plan by a big margin
2.)
"The Delta Water Tunnels would instead destroy endangered and threatened fish species," said Michael. "The Tunnels would divert for the Central Valley and State Water Projects vast quantities of freshwater from the Sacramento River near Clarksburg that would no longer flow through the lower Sacramento River, sloughs, and Delta. This would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species of fish and adversely modify their designated critical habitat by taking away freshwater flows for Winter Run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green Sturgeon, and Delta smelt."
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 29, 2015, 06:20:47 PM
California for all purposes is a single party state. Most of that party's leadership lives in and around the City of Los Angeles while controlling the state's water and power utilities. And relationships with the federal government for federal funds and initiatives.
1. - 60% of the California population lives in and around L.A. 2. - 60% of the natural water in California occurs in NorCal. 3. - Farmers in the imperial valley are growing alfalfa and exporting it to China and the middle east. Their water comes from the Colorado River which means during a drought California is exporting about 1b feet of water out of the west locked up in plant cells. The Imperial Valley voted for Moonbeam by a very large margin. Central valley farmers, many of them live in districts represented by the opposition party, and are going out of business because their water has been cut off. Those with ground water rights older than California, are being told they no longer own their wells. And are in opposition party districts. 4. - San Diego is about to cut itself off from the water issue by building a $1b Desalinization plant which comes on line in 2016. Naturally the rest of California tried every way possible to stop them for "environmental reasons ;)". 5. - Governor Moonbeam's high speed rail project funds could build desalinization plants for L.A. and S.F. 6. - The Delta Smelt may be a smoke screen for Governor Moonbeam's $60b project to bore tunnels to bring in more water from the head of the Sacramento river to SoCal. The smelt allows Moonbeam to cut off the valley water which the federal government controls the actual spigot, to the valley farmers exacerbating a natural drought. Moonbeam looks like a victim of the endangered species act just like his state's farmers so he gets his $60b water rescue project for the "state", errr SoCal. Instead of building more dams and catchments to store water from good years, the tunnels just drain existing water faster to SoCal. On average these California droughts last 4-5 years every other 5-6 years. In the last 60 years the state population has grown without any growth in dams and water catchment. SoCal has reached the point that it can suck dry the state water storage in 4 years along with impacting the state aquifers which take decades to replenish.
Welcome to Stupidfornia, a glimpse at any country run by ideological brethren of Governor Moonbeam and our current White House resident. Oh ,and Mr. resident refused to turn the federally controlled spigot on that is helping Moonbeam push his tunnels that will mean union jobs in Stupidfornia. And the Carlsbad CA, desalinization plant is owned by the County of Sand Diego, out of the hands of the Moonbeam ideological brethren controlled California water commission on purpose. 60% of the population of Stupidfornia lives in and around Los Angeles and votes 80% Stupid. Sand Diego would never see any of the water they paid $1b to create if the water commission controlled the output because they mostly don't vote Stupid in San Diego county.
Never politically allow a good natural or other disaster go to waste.
They noted that this giant project will cost California tax and ratepayers between $15 and $60 billion — "one of California’s largest public investments to date." And there will be no public vote, unlike in 1982 when the voters turned down the original peripheral tunnel plan by a big margin
2.)
"The Delta Water Tunnels would instead destroy endangered and threatened fish species," said Michael. "The Tunnels would divert for the Central Valley and State Water Projects vast quantities of freshwater from the Sacramento River near Clarksburg that would no longer flow through the lower Sacramento River, sloughs, and Delta. This would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species of fish and adversely modify their designated critical habitat by taking away freshwater flows for Winter Run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, green Sturgeon, and Delta smelt."
Here in this hopeless ing hole we call L.A. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away. Any ing time. Any ing day. Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.
Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves. Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still. Followed by millions of dumbfounded dip its.
Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see Armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will cause I sure could use a vacation from this
Stupid it, silly it, stupid it...
One great big festering neon distraction, I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim. [3x]
Mom's gonna fix it all soon. Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.
Learn to swim.
F L Ron Hubbard and all his clones. all these gun-toting Hip gangster wannabes.
Learn to swim.
retro anything. your tattoos. all you junkies and your short memory.
Learn to swim.
smiley glad-hands With hidden agendas. these dysfunctional, Insecure actresses.
Learn to swim.
Cause I'm praying for rain And I'm praying for tidal waves I wanna see the ground give way. I wanna watch it all go down. Mom, please flush it all away. I wanna see it go right in and down. I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 29, 2015, 06:35:40 PM
Bustr, thanks for the backstory on the darter. I had my suspicions. As an ex-Palo Alto resident, I now place a prayer rug on my Ann Arbor floor, take my knees, and bow in your direction. you've nailed it in some depth, yet summarized nicely.
You are a very large and very good sort of turd and I apologize for ever having quibbled with you. And I use that turd term in a friendly and disarming way... :aok
I should add, I'm assuming that the odds of the sane north and south seceding from the "stuck on stupid" part is approx nil.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on September 29, 2015, 07:00:43 PM
Welcome to Stupidfornia, a glimpse at any country run by
:rofl :aok
In 1999, we moved our company out of The People's Republic of California, mainly because of high taxes. We went on to hire in Washington State and spend about $100M into the economy of Washington State, and California got $0. We were an example of what happens on the right side of the Laffer curve.
The only problem with people leaving California for, say, Texas is that some of them bring their political philosophy with them and start to wreck the places they move to (having already wrecked they place they are leaving). I worry that it will be like New Hampshire, which was taken over by people from Mass.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on September 29, 2015, 07:44:44 PM
We were an example of what happens on the right side of the Laffer curve.
Ah yes, the side of the curve in which rate increases cause incremental decreases in revenue. Yet some still call it voodoo and are baffled (see the City of Detroit as a fine example of economic illiteracy amongst leadership) that jacking rates further leads to base flight and erosion of revenue. Perhaps "stupidfornia" isn't the only example.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 29, 2015, 08:04:22 PM
I thought they were going to farm in Detroit. :x
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on September 29, 2015, 10:20:15 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on September 29, 2015, 10:44:40 PM
Some historical perspective on climate and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Temperature over time: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_Climate_Change.png)
CO2 over time: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)
If you burned all the known reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal in the ground that we know of, all in one shot, atmospheric CO2 would go from 400 ppm (today's level) to about 800 ppm (unless I made a math error). As you can see from the above graph, 800 ppm is half or less of the amount during the time of the dinosaurs.
Also, while historically the effect of warmer temperatures on earth and higher CO2 on earth has been beneficial, we do know that there is a very strong history of periodic ice ages that were not. Warmer temperatures might trigger some undesirable things or it might not be that bad. An ice age very definitely would be far worse to the point of wiping out most people on the planet.
Think of adding CO2 to the atmosphere as a trial insurance policy against a next ice age.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Peanut1 on September 29, 2015, 10:51:36 PM
(see the City of Detroit as a fine example of economic illiteracy amongst leadership)
Unfortunately, there are cities that tread the same path as Detroit and are (unsurprisingly) having the same things happen. They are blind to history. Most people don't look at history to see the clear examples of what works and what doesn't work.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on September 30, 2015, 01:25:33 AM
The fact is that we likely won't combat climate change (in the US, at any rate) with any real measure of seriousness before we reach the tipping point (which may have already happened, actually).
For a number of reasons, too many people either refuse to believe it even exists, or simply don't understand its significance, and it's threats, misconstruing it as concern about how hot it is and whether or not we need to run the A/C.
Luckily, chemical engineering and material science is advancing rapidly. It's possible that we'll reach the ability to engineer the climate to our specifications before the problem gets too serious.
But unfortunately, we likely HAVE to bank on science to save us.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: JimmyD3 on September 30, 2015, 01:34:57 AM
The fact is that we likely won't combat climate change (in the US, at any rate) with any real measure of seriousness before we reach the tipping point (which may have already happened, actually).
For a number of reasons, too many people either refuse to believe it even exists, or simply don't understand its significance, and it's threats, misconstruing it as concern about how hot it is and whether or not we need to run the A/C.
Luckily, chemical engineering and material science is advancing rapidly. It's possible that we'll reach the ability to engineer the climate to our specifications before the problem gets too serious.
But unfortunately, we likely HAVE to bank on science to save us.
Don't worry ISIS will make it all irrelevant.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on September 30, 2015, 01:38:13 AM
Luckily, chemical engineering and material science is advancing rapidly. It's possible that we'll reach the ability to engineer the climate to our specifications before the problem gets too serious.
Absolutely. We've been able to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere perhaps to avert a next ice age (which we are about due for otherwise). :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on September 30, 2015, 04:44:02 AM
Absolutely. We've been able to put enough CO2 into the atmosphere perhaps to avert a next ice age (which we are about due for otherwise). :aok
mothers not going to like that. big storms a brewing. :old: :bolt:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on September 30, 2015, 10:36:48 AM
There is no way we will be able to "engineer" a climate in our life time. If a volcano cannot do it, how do you think people will? It's not something that is easily doable, especially considering the wind patterns of the earth.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on September 30, 2015, 10:45:19 AM
In 1999, we moved our company out of The People's Republic of California, mainly because of high taxes. We went on to hire in Washington State and spend about $100M into the economy of Washington State, and California got $0. We were an example of what happens on the right side of the Laffer curve.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe this as tax arbitrage or something similar?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on September 30, 2015, 01:16:45 PM
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
:airplane: where in the world do you get that the ice caps are shrinking? BS! according to NOAA, there is more ice cap today than ever before in history! You people who have swallowed AL Gore's great "hoax" on the American people, need to find something to do besides costing us tax payers more money with your crap! Contrary to the people who "walk" leaning left, there is nothing that we can or should do about so called global warming!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MiloMorai on September 30, 2015, 01:42:29 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on September 30, 2015, 02:41:35 PM
According to NASA:
Two weeks after the Arctic Ocean's ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low for the satellite era (left), Antarctic sea ice reached a record winter maximum extent.
Thank goodness the Antarctic Ice is growing and the Arctic Ice is shrinking. I was really starting to worry about that. We definitely need more Antarctic Ice and less Arctic is to keep the planet from tipping over.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on September 30, 2015, 03:36:41 PM
Thank goodness the Antarctic Ice is growing and the Arctic Ice is shrinking. I was really starting to worry about that. We definitely need more Antarctic Ice and less Arctic is to keep the planet from tipping over.
Absolutely, lest we get a shift in the axis of rotation of the earth leading to catastrophe for the delta smelt.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on September 30, 2015, 05:04:48 PM
Even if the totality of the US agreed to live in mud huts, walk everywhere, and not burn fires. Africa, India, Pacific Rim nations and China would keep on polluting at levels we didn't come close to at the height of our SMOG days in the 70's. They would make up for us returning to the stone age and then some on their own.
Of the 1.6 billion Chinese, only about 300 million live the good life in their modern cities equal to our hated over consuming and scorned U.S. level of living by a population of only 320 million. The rest live in the country on farms and many burn dung or wood to survive. While the other 300 million need so many coal burning plants to create and maintain their level of living that they have real SMOG problems that really kill people every year from direct inhalation while living in some of the most modern cities on the planet. Along with killing natural water sheds and the surrounding country near their hundreds of coal fire electric plants and coal fire industries from the byproducts.
India has 1.2 billion Indians with a growing modern sector close to 300 million like China, and the rest living in rural areas burning dung or wood, and so forth etc. And don't forget the Asian brown cloud from all the fires used by the rural peoples from east Africa through to Asia that has impacted the monsoon cycle and is creating a slight cooling effect in that region.
Both nations along with Africa and the whole Pacific rim consume more hydrocarbon based fuel than the USA can ever hope to. And the demand is only going up as all of these nations very small wealth producing sectors modernize, expand, and want all those creature comforts the world and our Stupid leftist fruitloops accuse the U.S.A. of destroying the planet for past and present. Because somehow our greed is more damaging to mother earth than their greed or some fruitlooped stupid reasoning like that.
The USA is not the single most evil polluting country creating single handedly global warming on planet earth. And never was. We were just the first to modernize at the rate we did which quickly made us one of the wealthyest. We are also one of the easiest nations to con into feeling guilty for existing, and letting ourselves be robbed blind by countries and world organizations including the EU. Who can't meet their own CO2 goals and couldn't give a ratz keester other than the revenue it feeds into their governments. The EU needs all the money it can get to pay cradle to grave for all of their unemployed, and the UN has a never ending desire visa what ever the scam to become a world government some day. And global warming is a great revenue train if a global tax can be imposed. And once a tax can be imposed, you can impose government with it to enforce collecting it.
Global warming is BS, but, it's a great scam to create government forced transfers of wealth and power, along with modifications in society against the rights and legal will of citizens to save them from a contrived global catastrophe. Citizens who buy in to it are "tacitly" voting for their government to assume cradle to grave authority over their lives and anyone who believes other wise without having to declare itself a dictatorship.
You have to respect China for making no bones about not taking part in the global warming scam and telling the rest of the fruitloops to screw themselves. They don't need to con their citizens into accepting becoming wards of the state with the lie of saving the planet.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on September 30, 2015, 05:09:18 PM
Two weeks after the Arctic Ocean's ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low for the satellite era (left), Antarctic sea ice reached a record winter maximum extent.
Thank goodness the Antarctic Ice is growing and the Arctic Ice is shrinking. I was really starting to worry about that. We definitely need more Antarctic Ice and less Arctic is to keep the planet from tipping over.
:aok This statement qualifies you for congress! lol :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SIK1 on September 30, 2015, 08:11:42 PM
Even if the totality of the US agreed to live in mud huts, walk everywhere, and not burn fires. Africa, India, Pacific Rim nations and China would keep on polluting at levels we didn't come close to at the height of our SMOG days in the 70's. They would make up for us returning to the stone age and then some on their own.
Of the 1.6 billion Chinese, only about 300 million live the good life in their modern cities equal to our hated over consuming and scorned U.S. level of living by a population of only 320 million. The rest live in the country on farms and many burn dung or wood to survive. While the other 300 million need so many coal burning plants to create and maintain their level of living that they have real SMOG problems that really kill people every year from direct inhalation while living in some of the most modern cities on the planet. Along with killing natural water sheds and the surrounding country near their hundreds of coal fire electric plants and coal fire industries from the byproducts.
India has 1.2 billion Indians with a growing modern sector close to 300 million like China, and the rest living in rural areas burning dung or wood, and so forth etc. And don't forget the Asian brown cloud from all the fires used by the rural peoples from east Africa through to Asia that has impacted the monsoon cycle and is creating a slight cooling effect in that region.
*snip*I'm angry and don't really know what I'm talking about*snip*
And others' irresponsibility justifies our own? Well hell, if we're going to go back to preschool logic, give me my Ferrari, because I want it.
The fact remains that, unless one dismisses nearly the entirety of the accredited and respected world brain trust, as well as vast quantities of data, and even an exposed cover up and scandal, we're at least partially responsible for the problem.
We can take steps to help reduce the problem, encourage and assist others in reducing the problem, mitigate the damage. To knowingly refuse to do so, simply because not everyone is, is juvenile and irresponsible.
Not only that, it's selfish. You're knowingly contributing to a problem you likely won't have to worry about solving.
Such mentality, such proud ignorance, is the number one problem with humanity.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: JimmyD3 on October 01, 2015, 01:54:33 AM
And others' irresponsibility justifies our own? Well hell, if we're going to go back to preschool logic, give me my Ferrari, because I want it.
The fact remains that, unless one dismisses nearly the entirety of the accredited and respected world brain trust, as well as vast quantities of data, and even an exposed cover up and scandal, we're at least partially responsible for the problem.
We can take steps to help reduce the problem, encourage and assist others in reducing the problem, mitigate the damage. To knowingly refuse to do so, simply because not everyone is, is juvenile and irresponsible.
Not only that, it's selfish. You're knowingly contributing to a problem you likely won't have to worry about solving.
Such mentality, such proud ignorance, is the number one problem with humanity.
:rofl
So says the Socialist. :rofl
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 01, 2015, 03:10:49 AM
And others' irresponsibility justifies our own? Well hell, if we're going to go back to preschool logic, give me my Ferrari, because I want it.
The fact remains that, unless one dismisses nearly the entirety of the accredited and respected world brain trust, as well as vast quantities of data, and even an exposed cover up and scandal, we're at least partially responsible for the problem.
We can take steps to help reduce the problem, encourage and assist others in reducing the problem, mitigate the damage. To knowingly refuse to do so, simply because not everyone is, is juvenile and irresponsible.
Not only that, it's selfish. You're knowingly contributing to a problem you likely won't have to worry about solving.
Such mentality, such proud ignorance, is the number one problem with humanity.
:airplane: Your words are elegant and very admiral, and the sad thing is, there is nothing we can do about so called global warming! Yes, some of the industrial "scrubbers" have increase the quality of air in and around some of our industrial cities! But, since "trees" contribute more carbon into the atmosphere than do humans, do you think we should cut down all trees and go back to living in mud huts? God, through his grace, have given us the intelligence to figure out as humans, how to increase our quality of life on this earth! While it is easy for people to disagree with you and I, even though we have different points of view about this subject, the best thing man can do to help his quality of life on this earth is to build things which are carbon free, because there is nothing we can do about the past. I think that with people with your point of view, will cost people in the U.S. so much money, you will have people on fixed incomes "freezing" to death because they can't afford their electrical bills. Unfortunately the powers that be in this country, just don't understand the "un-intended" results of some of the laws that are passed, so this subject is like most others, they don't seem to care about the results of their actions, they only care about remaining in their "ivory" towers in Washington! Now, with the benefit of hind sight, wouldn't it be nice to go back to 1960 and start over? Of course I know a lot of people reading this wouldn't even be born yet, but we would know better how to educate them on problems facing us! First thing I would do is, when someone gets to the age of 14, they are given, free of charge, a J-3 cub, with 100 gallons of free gas and told to learn how to fly and respect the earth that God has given us to enjoy. I have yet to meet anyone who flies who does not have a different outlook on themselves and other humans. Maybe that is the answer to our present day problems, give everybody a J-3 cub. LOL
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 01, 2015, 04:46:28 AM
:airplane: Your words are elegant and very admiral, and the sad thing is, there is nothing we can do about so called global warming! Yes, some of the industrial "scrubbers" have increase the quality of air in and around some of our industrial cities! But, since "trees" contribute more carbon into the atmosphere than do humans, do you think we should cut down all trees and go back to living in mud huts? God, through his grace, have given us the intelligence to figure out as humans, how to increase our quality of life on this earth! While it is easy for people to disagree with you and I, even though we have different points of view about this subject, the best thing man can do to help his quality of life on this earth is to build things which are carbon free, because there is nothing we can do about the past. I think that with people with your point of view, will cost people in the U.S. so much money, you will have people on fixed incomes "freezing" to death because they can't afford their electrical bills. Unfortunately the powers that be in this country, just don't understand the "un-intended" results of some of the laws that are passed, so this subject is like most others, they don't seem to care about the results of their actions, they only care about remaining in their "ivory" towers in Washington! Now, with the benefit of hind sight, wouldn't it be nice to go back to 1960 and start over? Of course I know a lot of people reading this wouldn't even be born yet, but we would know better how to educate them on problems facing us! First thing I would do is, when someone gets to the age of 14, they are given, free of charge, a J-3 cub, with 100 gallons of free gas and told to learn how to fly and respect the earth that God has given us to enjoy. I have yet to meet anyone who flies who does not have a different outlook on themselves and other humans. Maybe that is the answer to our present day problems, give everybody a J-3 cub. LOL
i like this guy. :airplane:
fbkamp do we want to compare carbon footprints? id guess its about the same. im like most people and try to recycle my used oil. you are talking in a brainwashed state of mind. you see we all like things clean and sustainable, its more a mater of how this happens. point A: forcing people to do things like not burn wood for heat is ridiculous. point B: forcing people to build a dam to supply power and water is ridiculous. what side are u on A or B?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: mbailey on October 01, 2015, 05:05:59 AM
:airplane: Your words are elegant and very admiral, and the sad thing is, there is nothing we can do about so called global warming! Yes, some of the industrial "scrubbers" have increase the quality of air in and around some of our industrial cities! But, since "trees" contribute more carbon into the atmosphere than do humans, do you think we should cut down all trees and go back to living in mud huts? God, through his grace, have given us the intelligence to figure out as humans, how to increase our quality of life on this earth! While it is easy for people to disagree with you and I, even though we have different points of view about this subject, the best thing man can do to help his quality of life on this earth is to build things which are carbon free, because there is nothing we can do about the past. I think that with people with your point of view, will cost people in the U.S. so much money, you will have people on fixed incomes "freezing" to death because they can't afford their electrical bills. Unfortunately the powers that be in this country, just don't understand the "un-intended" results of some of the laws that are passed, so this subject is like most others, they don't seem to care about the results of their actions, they only care about remaining in their "ivory" towers in Washington! Now, with the benefit of hind sight, wouldn't it be nice to go back to 1960 and start over? Of course I know a lot of people reading this wouldn't even be born yet, but we would know better how to educate them on problems facing us! First thing I would do is, when someone gets to the age of 14, they are given, free of charge, a J-3 cub, with 100 gallons of free gas and told to learn how to fly and respect the earth that God has given us to enjoy. I have yet to meet anyone who flies who does not have a different outlook on themselves and other humans. Maybe that is the answer to our present day problems, give everybody a J-3 cub. LOL
Made me think of my Dad...he was flying a Cub at 14. He always bragged he learned to fly before he learned to drive a car. Made me smile, thanks.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 01, 2015, 05:46:32 AM
Kampfer,
The US cleaned up it's act long before China, India, Africa and the Pacific rim took over polluting and consuming at levels the US with only 350 million people could never accomplish now that we castrated ourselves in the name of white guilt and political correctness. The UN can only steal power and money from the first world and do not have the power or the will to try and force the previously mentioned countries and regions to stop killing the planet. They have no reason to really want to solve global BS warming because it increases their money and power to hold never ending summits about it. China will tell the world to whizz off just like it did for the Kyoto protocol if the world try's to force it to stop the path it's on. And you have watched China periodically prove it can cripple the West visa cyber attacks if it really wants to. Or just call in everyone's loans and cause another world wide economic crash. Feeding your family today always trumps computer projected disasters 50 years from now when the prognosticators are all dead and buried.
Go whine at the Chinese and try out your save the earth zealotry on them. They don't care about your PC nonsense anymore than I do. They would also arrest you for subversive activities and not deport you, which is why everyone attacks the U.S.A. and it's citizens. It's safe, lazy and Americans can be guilt tripped into giving money to stop feeling guilty over things as stupid as personal farting causes global warming. I guess fiber is ultimately gonna kill us all after the PC food police told us we had to eat it or else.
Earl,
Rebuilt an Aeronca Champion and resold it when I was 17 to pay for college. One of the benefits of my father being a commercial pilot and instructor with friends in that industry. Learned why you wear gloves shooting a sand blaster.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 01, 2015, 08:45:10 AM
Made me think of my Dad...he was flying a Cub at 14. He always bragged he learned to fly before he learned to drive a car. Made me smile, thanks.
:airplane: Thanks that was the intent of the post, to make someone smile a little! While we tend to laugh and joke about some of the things going on right now in our great country, there are some serious morons who are making life more difficult than it should be. I am reminded of the EPA a few years back, were going to pass regulations on live stock "farting" on farms and etc, to help clean up the atmosphere and I don't know if it ever was passed or not. I have forgotten what they were going to charge per "fart", I would guess a goat wouldn't cost as much as a horse, because of the size difference in the animal. Do you think they charged so much per chicken! I am so glad we have such smart people in our government who are protecting me!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 01, 2015, 08:49:09 AM
We can take steps to help reduce the problem, encourage and assist others in reducing the problem, mitigate the damage.
Such mentality, such proud ignorance, is the number one problem with humanity.
What problem? Increased crop yields ? Yea we should fix that asap! The last statement is the only truth I've seen in your post,, the proud ignorance part! Education, the ability to understand the things you can and cannot change, the ability to adapt to change that is inevitable, the education to help you understand the difference!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 01, 2015, 09:02:53 AM
The largest ice sheet in the world is growing, and was growing back when it was reported to be shrinking. Since it's in Antarctica we don't have to worry. :D
Big money in carbon credits. :banana:
You are making an error of omission. You are ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.
In summary:
• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate • Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
UQx DENIAL101x 2.3.3.1 Antarctica land ice vs sea ice
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 11:58:36 AM
this is the kind of ideas our schools are putting in our kids heads. im sorry for you caz but your going to have to settle down, and if you come to my house i will have to shoot.
It gets worse in college and a fear mongering individual can really mentor a child to death. caz if you really care about global changing try getting a degree in engineering and get a good job. :old:
I do not think that you understand how science works. You do not get a vote on whether or not gravity exists. Science says bring me evidence to support your idea and peers will review and evaluate it.
If you do not want science taught at your kid's school, that is OK, we will always need asbestos remediation technicians. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 01, 2015, 12:09:29 PM
The US cleaned up it's act long before China, India, Africa and the Pacific rim took over polluting and consuming at levels the US with only 350 million people could never accomplish now that we castrated ourselves in the name of white guilt and political correctness. The UN can only steal power and money from the first world and do not have the power or the will to try and force the previously mentioned countries and regions to stop killing the planet. They have no reason to really want to solve global BS warming because it increases their money and power to hold never ending summits about it. China will tell the world to whizz off just like it did for the Kyoto protocol if the world try's to force it to stop the path it's on. And you have watched China periodically prove it can cripple the West visa cyber attacks if it really wants to. Or just call in everyone's loans and cause another world wide economic crash. Feeding your family today always trumps computer projected disasters 50 years from now when the prognosticators are all dead and buried.
Go whine at the Chinese and try out your save the earth zealotry on them. They don't care about your PC nonsense anymore than I do. They would also arrest you for subversive activities and not deport you, which is why everyone attacks the U.S.A. and it's citizens. It's safe, lazy and Americans can be guilt tripped into giving money to stop feeling guilty over things as stupid as personal farting causes global warming. I guess fiber is ultimately gonna kill us all after the PC food police told us we had to eat it or else.
Earl,
Rebuilt an Aeronca Champion and resold it when I was 17 to pay for college. One of the benefits of my father being a commercial pilot and instructor with friends in that industry. Learned why you wear gloves shooting a sand blaster.
Ah, more music from my new Idol, the Porcine God who calls himself "The Bustr"... Indeed, the current "Global Warming" methodology is as fine a study of application of Sun Tzu's methods as has ever been seen; a "weaponized" pseudoscience designed to systematically extract rents from a bunch of under-accomplished but well-heeled white guilt-trippers. As you know, when you can trace every dollar back to an accomplished goal, the guilt doesn't exist. OTOH, if somebody drops a Heinz fortune in your lap... you might just feel unworthy.
Yes, there are other people out there who want a better way of life and are willing to forego things they value less in order to get it. But, adults get that whole trade-off discussion (and would accept common-sense environmental requirements but not zero-tolerance cautionary ones), children who want what they want and want it now demand utopia and expect you, Mr. Bustr, to balloon your farts, since even this negligible release is beyond the pale (even as the Chinese and Indian smokestacks belch on, unfettered by the most rudimentary of filters - hell, I even saw a story about a Chinese battery factory in which the workers were handling cadmium barehanded). But then, it's easier to bee-atch at you than to stand up to the Chinese, because the latter would take real spine, whereas you're a veritable neighbor down the street.
I noted, with some schadenfreude, the abandonment, in 2012 or so, of the Chicago-based Carbon Exchange. The plan was simple: buy and sell carbon credits so that you could meet regulatory requirements. But the regulatory requirements never came, thank god, and so the primary investors in the Carbon Exchange plan, who stood to take a house rake off of every transaction (a thing worth billions if not trillions) had to walk away empty-handed. And who were those primary investors? Perhaps some people in the land of "whatevah" might like to know. Of course, Big Al was an investor, as was a Prof from Joyce; an institute on whose board your current President once sat. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252703/rip-al-gores-chicago-climate-exchange-has-died-greg-pollowitz (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252703/rip-al-gores-chicago-climate-exchange-has-died-greg-pollowitz)
Well, what have we wrought in creating a generation that had everything given them on a silver platter? A vacuum abhorred by nature...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 12:11:20 PM
Thing is, the warmers are totally ignoring fossil records that show a biodiversity explosion every time the global temperature rises or CO2 naturally rises. Its all doom and gloom.
I think there certainly could be more done to reduce man made pollution, but I am convinced that the warmer's crusade is distracting everyone from making any progress towards real improvements in *pollution* control. CO2 is a byproduct of respiration and its also plant food, so classifying that as pollution the same as, say, a mercury spill, is harming the entire environmental movement.
eagl, I looked over your posts and I could not find even ONE item that you are correct on. You must be a Fox News junkie.
[/youtube]
UQx DENIAL101x 5.4.2.1 Carbon dioxide is a pollutant
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 01, 2015, 12:17:56 PM
Reminding me a little of Noam Chomsky... Chomsky is that most maddening of things; a man with a good intellect who can criticize everything yet offers solutions to nothing.
So here, in the quote to which you refer, we see a lot of generalized railing, no specific citations of anything, a generic shaming of humans ( which includes YOU, get it?) and no proposed "better way". Meanwhile, if you're like me, you're part of the current economy using current technologies and methods to search for a BETTER way.
In short, the railing adds no value and, if you don't like the current economic engine or current portfolio of technologies but have nothing to offer that's better, get out of the way and let those who are trying to find solutions do their work.
The dirty secret of all that "railing": it's a rather transparent attempt to claim moral authority, and with that goes, ultimately, legal authority. Never fall for it - and good for you for mocking it - that's all it deserved.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 01, 2015, 12:56:07 PM
I do not think that you understand how science works. You do not get a vote on whether or not gravity exists. Science says bring me evidence to support your idea and peers will review and evaluate it.
If you do not want science taught at your kid's school, that is OK, we will always need asbestos remediation technicians. :old:
I do not think you read my post. When the kid settles down from the fear he has been taught he can get a enginering degree and start working on saving the world! :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 01:37:20 PM
I do not think you read my post. When the kid settles down from the fear he has been taught he can get a enginering degree and start working on saving the world! :old:
Sorry, read it too fast and replied even faster.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 01, 2015, 02:25:33 PM
It is hypocritical of people without much scientific background to berate others for not knowing enough science.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 02:43:51 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Aspen on October 01, 2015, 03:43:10 PM
I did my part. I bought 3 new pairs of shorts and some SPF 50 sunscreen. I'm looking at some mountain property here in Colorado which I assume will be beach front someday and worth a lot more (even though mountain property is already expensive).
I thought about pretending humans could reverse or substantially effect the large scale climate shifts the earth goes through, but the amount of hubris it would take was daunting.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 04:54:11 PM
The day will come when Mother Earth thru her natural climate cycles/ geological changes will shake us off her back like fleas from a dog.....We will adapt, or go extinct.... We're no better than the hundreds of millions of other life forms here that have disappeared as a result of natural occurances. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps to keep her clean, if only out of respect and thoughtfulness for future generations.....IMHO the climate change argument is just 2 agendas trying to bang their heads against each other, each hoping for a favorable outcome to their agenda......us fleas hubris Has no ceiling
(http://i61.tinypic.com/24az5zp.gif)
I believe that climate change is happening and that man is significantly contributing to it.
So on the one side you have thousands of scientists (97% of all scientists) saying that there is evidence for it.
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage
On the other side you have CO2 polluters trying to shove as much cash as they can down the throats of as many community leaders that they can find to say that climate change is caused by anything but them. In fact, one of them, after promising to stop doing so in 2007, has handed out around 30 million dollars over the past few years.
After I watched that clip I couldn’t help but to think of this:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2qarcc0.jpg)
One last point for today:
So you say humans cannot impact climate change. I beg to differ. Now it is disputed, but some say that Genghis Khan was, in effect, a green eco-warrior. How?
By massacring around 40 million people it is estimated that he scrubbed 700m tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Now that should appeal to some you guys on this BBS!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on October 01, 2015, 05:42:12 PM
Sys Error, your error is that you think that more information will persuade anyone over this topic. If anything more information will only increase the polarization of views. What is at work here, I believe, (and I'm sure you could find a behavioral psychology study to back this up, but really, whats the point?) is a form of tribalism. There are people who believe that the majority scientific opinion that you cite is bogus. There is nothing you could link to or declare that is going to make any difference in that belief. Everything you post is immediately discounted as ideologically driven dissembling.
It seems self evident to me that we live in the anthropocene. I do not believe that climate science is the same as Lysenkoism. The world is a small place and it is getting smaller.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 01, 2015, 07:35:53 PM
I did my part. I bought 3 new pairs of shorts and some SPF 50 sunscreen. I'm looking at some mountain property here in Colorado which I assume will be beach front someday and worth a lot more (even though mountain property is already expensive).
I thought about pretending humans could reverse or substantially effect the large scale climate shifts the earth goes through, but the amount of hubris it would take was daunting.
Good work aspen. A guy can not get ready for climate change soon enough. Those suckers in new york will be running for your property soon enough! Opportunity's abound!
Just be careful the magnetic field of the earth will be flipping soon and your SPF 50 will not be enough. We are going to need a lot of help building a iron disk in space to block the sun to save our co2 from being blown away. The sign up sheet is down the hall. Oh I guess I should tell you that when we block the sun the ice will come back and the water levels will drop and LA property will be dirt cheap. High Five. :banana:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 01, 2015, 07:43:36 PM
Now that should appeal to some you guys on this BBS!
40 million people = 700 trees. Wow batman. Thanks for putting it in perspective.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chilli on October 01, 2015, 07:50:03 PM
Did you know that if you quit smoking early enough, your lungs have the ability to repair themselves to a degree, but at the very least, the lungs stop being assaulted. Pretty much the same .....
Why would I want my lungs to not be assaulted? :headscratch:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mar on October 01, 2015, 07:54:43 PM
Did you know that if you quit smoking early enough, you lungs have the ability to repair themselves to a degree, but at the very least, the lungs stop being assaulted. Pretty much the same .....
Why would I want my lungs to not be assaulted? :headscratch:
I want what you guys are having.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 01, 2015, 07:57:11 PM
Okay, then step away from the keyboard. Go outside and take a great big breath of reality.
Or you could stay very comfortable within your own skin and say to heck with anything that is not effecting you right now.
:rolleyes: Man, a couple of guys got paid a bunch of money to get on the airwaves and spout conspiracy garbage, and ever since the average audience member's brain has shrunk to the size of a campaign button.
I am not saying that includes you...... and I would love to stay and actually debate, but a "real" hurricane is pushing up the Atlantic, and although they say it most likely will miss, I am not one to go stand on the beach with my finger in the air. I hope you are all safe and property secured. :salute
Okay, then step away from the keyboard. Go outside and take a great big breath of reality.
Or you could stay very comfortable within your own skin and say to heck with anything that is not effecting you right now.
:rolleyes: Man, a couple of guys got paid a bunch of money to get on the airwaves and spout conspiracy garbage, and ever since the average audience member's brain has shrunk to the size of a campaign button.
I am not saying that includes you...... and I would love to stay and actually debate, but a "real" hurricane is pushing up the Atlantic, and although they say it most likely will miss, I am not one to go stand on the beach with my finger in the air. I hope you are all safe and property secured. :salute
That's nice to know, did you know Cow farts could deplete the ozone? :rolleyes:
We must attach a pilot lite on all cows butts!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 08:29:54 PM
Sys Error, your error is that you think that more information will persuade anyone over this topic. If anything more information will only increase the polarization of views. What is at work here, I believe, (and I'm sure you could find a behavioral psychology study to back this up, but really, whats the point?) is a form of tribalism. There are people who believe that the majority scientific opinion that you cite is bogus. There is nothing you could link to or declare that is going to make any difference in that belief. Everything you post is immediately discounted as ideologically driven dissembling.
It seems self evident to me that we live in the anthropocene. I do not believe that climate science is the same as Lysenkoism. The world is a small place and it is getting smaller.
I think that I agree with you.
Here is something I posted to a Brooke comment just a little bit ago.
Quote
I want to say at the outset that I do not engage in these community posts with any delusion that minds are going to substantially change. White middle aged (or older) western males, (or perhaps just all mature men worldwide, I do not know) rarely publicly acknowledge a change in their positions. If they do, it is usually because the issue is inconsequential to them, or, they find themselves trying to find a face saving eddy to shelter in until the storm passes. A consequence of Argument as War where learning equals losing perhaps?
For me anyway, I tend to think that because writing is a “linear” process, whereas thinking is not, that writing helps me to organize and sharpen my thoughts. In other words, it is a pretty selfish endeavor.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 01, 2015, 08:38:34 PM
:airplane: Your words are elegant and very admiral, and the sad thing is, there is nothing we can do about so called global warming! Yes, some of the industrial "scrubbers" have increase the quality of air in and around some of our industrial cities! But, since "trees" contribute more carbon into the atmosphere than do humans, do you think we should cut down all trees and go back to living in mud huts? God, through his grace, have given us the intelligence to figure out as humans, how to increase our quality of life on this earth! While it is easy for people to disagree with you and I, even though we have different points of view about this subject, the best thing man can do to help his quality of life on this earth is to build things which are carbon free, because there is nothing we can do about the past. I think that with people with your point of view, will cost people in the U.S. so much money, you will have people on fixed incomes "freezing" to death because they can't afford their electrical bills. Unfortunately the powers that be in this country, just don't understand the "un-intended" results of some of the laws that are passed, so this subject is like most others, they don't seem to care about the results of their actions, they only care about remaining in their "ivory" towers in Washington! Now, with the benefit of hind sight, wouldn't it be nice to go back to 1960 and start over? Of course I know a lot of people reading this wouldn't even be born yet, but we would know better how to educate them on problems facing us! First thing I would do is, when someone gets to the age of 14, they are given, free of charge, a J-3 cub, with 100 gallons of free gas and told to learn how to fly and respect the earth that God has given us to enjoy. I have yet to meet anyone who flies who does not have a different outlook on themselves and other humans. Maybe that is the answer to our present day problems, give everybody a J-3 cub. LOL
Earl, some things are worth fighting for, a planet our kids will want to live on is one of them, in my view. Nobody who is serious has ever said it will be easy, or cheap, only that it will be necessary.
And trees mostly contribute carbon via dying, something shared with every living thing on the planet.
As for the carbon-based products, the primary problem is that most of it is simply thrown away, and ends up being burned.
Of course the overarching problem is our need for power, which can be met by a number of sources.I personally am an advocate of nuclear power, as an interim until other sources can be sufficiently integrated into the power grid.
Of course we also face the problem that the world does in fact have a carrying capacity, and that nobody has done anything about it. At some point, we have to face the fact that we can't have 11 billion people living in 1200sq ft homes, using up all the power they want. Which is the direction we're heading.
We're eventually even wealthy nations are going to openly go to war over consumable resources, or we're going to have to accept draconian and strictly regulated birth limits enforced by the government. Alternatively, we can also have forced euthanisation at a set age determined by birthrates, so that the population doesn't increase. It's a toejamty choice straight out of some Orwellian dystopia, and I don't claim otherwise. But it is, by the simple nature of population increase and limited resources, the choice we're faced with.
Anyone who truly understands the situation, and is not advocating immediate action, is desperately praying for science to save us. But it's a gamble, and the stakes are not something I personally am comfortable with.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 02, 2015, 12:52:36 AM
fbkamp do we want to compare carbon footprints? id guess its about the same. im like most people and try to recycle my used oil. you are talking in a brainwashed state of mind. you see we all like things clean and sustainable, its more a mater of how this happens. point A: forcing people to do things like not burn wood for heat is ridiculous. point B: forcing people to build a dam to supply power and water is ridiculous. what side are u on A or B?
I accept they're ridiculous options. But I also accept that, at some point in time, they will not be options, but necessary and desperate acts to save a crumbling way of life.
As I told Earl, it sucks. But, as contributors to the problem, we also have a responsibility to take action. If that action is, for you, simply recycling, then that's your call. I can't force you to change your mind. If it's donating to scientific research, or environmental groups, again that's your call.
However, you must accept some level of responsibility and accountability, and deal with it on your death bed, or with your god.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 02, 2015, 01:11:23 AM
The US cleaned up it's act long before China, India, Africa and the Pacific rim took over polluting and consuming at levels the US with only 350 million people could never accomplish now that we castrated ourselves in the name of white guilt and political correctness. The UN can only steal power and money from the first world and do not have the power or the will to try and force the previously mentioned countries and regions to stop killing the planet. They have no reason to really want to solve global BS warming because it increases their money and power to hold never ending summits about it. China will tell the world to whizz off just like it did for the Kyoto protocol if the world try's to force it to stop the path it's on. And you have watched China periodically prove it can cripple the West visa cyber attacks if it really wants to. Or just call in everyone's loans and cause another world wide economic crash. Feeding your family today always trumps computer projected disasters 50 years from now when the prognosticators are all dead and buried.
Go whine at the Chinese and try out your save the earth zealotry on them. They don't care about your PC nonsense anymore than I do. They would also arrest you for subversive activities and not deport you, which is why everyone attacks the U.S.A. and it's citizens. It's safe, lazy and Americans can be guilt tripped into giving money to stop feeling guilty over things as stupid as personal farting causes global warming. I guess fiber is ultimately gonna kill us all after the PC food police told us we had to eat it or else.
Earl,
Rebuilt an Aeronca Champion and resold it when I was 17 to pay for college. One of the benefits of my father being a commercial pilot and instructor with friends in that industry. Learned why you wear gloves shooting a sand blaster.
That you view it as "castration" is telling. We don't have a right to freely take all we want, because as people of your mind set are so fond of spouting, nothing is free.
There is a cost, in this case a greater one than any purely monetary computation of the resources taken, and damage done, because it affects other people's lives, and eventually will impact your children, or their children, no matter how rich and ignorant they turn out to be.
Additionally, I believe that at some point, failure to take action on climate change and pollution should be a casus belli. We'll end up fighting each other if we keep on down this road, the only choice is whether it's over the last of the oil, or making them take their hand out of the cookie jar.
And I believe you're misapplying the term "PC", as well commiting a logical fallacy in construing "politically correct" as inherently wrong. Instead of telling you to check your privileged, or something else you neither believe in, nor would do simply because it's coming from a "leftist", I'm going to tell you to check the Wikipedia article on logically fallacies, as well as accredited sources on population growth and world carrying capacity.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on October 02, 2015, 01:41:31 AM
Global warming is a myth :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 02, 2015, 02:05:06 AM
Oh, so not having your lungs assaulted is a bad thing now?
Really now, I'm not trying to start any trouble.
Ok, what I meant was that it seemed you missed the 'm' which I think indicates 700 million tons.
well pickle my sausage, i thought the "m" stood for metric. i guess thats what i get when i read million in the first half of the sentence then move on to a cryptic 700m wording. :salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 02, 2015, 02:08:54 AM
I accept they're ridiculous options. But I also accept that, at some point in time, they will not be options, but necessary and desperate acts to save a crumbling way of life.
As I told Earl, it sucks. But, as contributors to the problem, we also have a responsibility to take action. If that action is, for you, simply recycling, then that's your call. I can't force you to change your mind. If it's donating to scientific research, or environmental groups, again that's your call.
However, you must accept some level of responsibility and accountability, and deal with it on your death bed, or with your god.
building a dam is not a ridiculous idea. :old: :bhead
:rofl
dont kill the yellow scorpions and rock lichen.
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 02, 2015, 05:06:07 AM
Even given the selection bias issue, they set the bar pretty low. THe two questions required to join the "consensus" would actually make me a consensus member.
As for the rest of your citations, none are actually from scientific journals. All appear to be TV productions. If you were a member of the technical community, I'd expect you to know better.
Have a look at what some real scientists are saying, then we'll talk more. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/ http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/#sthash.6ltmEScq.dpbs http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells-congress-why-he-reversed-his-belief-in-global-warming-to-become-a-skeptic-there-are-several-lines-of-evidence-suggesting-that-it-agw-is-a-weaker-case-today-not/ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html
I could go on... The problem with warmists: you keep claiming to want totalk science but nonoe of you seen to have ever been within miles of it nor bothered to talk to any actual scientists.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 02, 2015, 05:27:15 AM
and, although you claim that “Note that you yourself have proved nothing.” I provide you AGAIN the following link that explains the difference between land ice and sea ice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PUmKHBtnlA
Again I ask you, provide your proof.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 02, 2015, 05:48:36 AM
And to add to the point the education most get comes from a individual with a bachelor degree that might of had a science class in college, thought by a career scholar who's opinion most like revolved around sending the world to bankruptcy or the stone age, both, ahem all three have never worked a day in their life and the two educators are funded by the current pollution system, not real solutions just heart felt sympathies for million dollar environmental extremist.
WE ALL WANT THE WORLD CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE, BETTER THAN WE GOT IT. The problem is how. The argument is what to do. Forcing crap might make you feel better but real solutions will happen if and when they are feaseable. Saving a smelt in spite of solutions is stupid.
Like Ben Carson says, we will fix these problems because we are smart.
Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 02, 2015, 07:57:46 AM
And to add to the point the education most get comes from a individual with a bachelor degree that might of had a science class in college, thought by a career scholar who's opinion most like revolved around sending the world to bankruptcy or the stone age, both, ahem all three have never worked a day in their life and the two educators are funded by the current pollution system, not real solutions just heart felt sympathies for million dollar environmental extremist.
WE ALL WANT THE WORLD CLEAN AND SUSTAINABLE, BETTER THAN WE GOT IT. The problem is how. The argument is what to do. Forcing crap might make you feel better but real solutions will happen if and when they are feaseable. Saving a smelt in spite of solutions is stupid.
Like Ben Carson says, we will fix these problems because we are smart.
Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up. :old:
Also China and South Asia have to start creating standards for their emissions. I'm aware that China may be starting to realize this. We are changing the tide of energy to better and more cleaner methods. Unfortunately, its not easy to stop one energy source because you have hundreds of lobbiest, employees who will get laid off, and it would completely cause an economic ruckus for a year or longer. It's not something that can be stopped over night.
People can only do so much. We have identified a problem and we are doing what we can as human beings to adjust to slowely cause a difference in our energy with cleaner energy. It is happening all over the world. We most likely won't see results from this until about 15 to 20 years from now if we do see any results.... The earth gonna do what the earth does and who knows what that will do. I think it's funny because the next time the earth cools a little, the human species will blame that on themselves and politicians will get all the credit. LMAO, such a society.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mickey1992 on October 02, 2015, 08:18:42 AM
China doesn't care about CO2 emissions. China is scheduled to bring online more coal power plants in the next 15 years than currently exist in the US.
Us lowered co2 emissions by 20 percent because of changing coal to natural gas. Look it up.
Not true. While burning natural gas releases about half the CO2 as burning coal, US power plants only account for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if every power plant in the US was converted to natural gas (it's currently 41% coal, 27% gas) , overall emissions would decrease by about 16%.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 02, 2015, 09:29:21 AM
sorry about that. :devil i guesstimate 8% decrease from the chart above but that might be representative of one sector. the amount seems low. but what do i know. :bolt:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 02, 2015, 09:33:07 AM
I did my part. I bought 3 new pairs of shorts and some SPF 50 sunscreen.
Good idea! I'll get some also and a pair of welding goggles :cool: I read this story, scary bs. "HHS Boosting Nation's Stockpile of Burn Treatments in Case of Nuclear Attack"
building a dam is not a ridiculous idea. :old: :bhead
:rofl
dont kill the yellow scorpions and rock lichen.
:salute
Forcing people is the ridiculous part. And of course I suppose it depends on the specifics of the region, like if those bastages at Nestlé wanted to dam up some California rivers so they can more easily collect and bottle it, I'd say it's a pretty awful idea.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mar on October 02, 2015, 01:05:51 PM
Not true. While burning natural gas releases about half the CO2 as burning coal, US power plants only account for 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if every power plant in the US was converted to natural gas (it's currently 41% coal, 27% gas) , overall emissions would decrease by about 16%.
If I am reading these charts correctly, then in 2015 Coal and Natural Gas provided about the same amount of energy.
Table ES1.A. Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2015 and 2014
Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) July 2015:
• Coal: 139,413 • Natural Gas: 139,997 • All Energy Sources: 399,620
~35%
Coal was down ~7% from last year Natural Gas up ~22% from last year
Percentages have changed a lot, but the total amount of coal energy has only gone down a bit.
I think that the “20%” claim is based on what would have happened if coal and natural gas were produced in the same proportions as before. (I could be wrong about this reasoning though).
BTW, I think that your 32% number is correct for % for power (megawatthours) generation in the US. There are, however, non-power generation uses of coal around the globe that take that number up to about 40%.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 02, 2015, 01:14:58 PM
Even given the selection bias issue, they set the bar pretty low. THe two questions required to join the "consensus" would actually make me a consensus member.
As for the rest of your citations, none are actually from scientific journals. All appear to be TV productions. If you were a member of the technical community, I'd expect you to know better.
Have a look at what some real scientists are saying, then we'll talk more. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/ http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/german-geologist-ipcc-models-a-failure-have-no-chance-of-success-sees-possible-0-2c-of-cooling-by-2020/#sthash.6ltmEScq.dpbs http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells-congress-why-he-reversed-his-belief-in-global-warming-to-become-a-skeptic-there-are-several-lines-of-evidence-suggesting-that-it-agw-is-a-weaker-case-today-not/ http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-paper-predicts-another-little-ice.html
I could go on... The problem with warmists: you keep claiming to want totalk science but nonoe of you seen to have ever been within miles of it nor bothered to talk to any actual scientists.
The problem is that their beliefs seem to be predicated on the idea that solar output is the only thing that matters. We know that's straight out roadkill.
We're they to simply say that Solar output is the primary problem, or that atmospheric chemistry is of lesser importance, sure. That's their opinion, arrived at after examination of data, awaiting validation like every other theory.
The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 02, 2015, 01:38:58 PM
Good science quotes sources, bad science attacks straw men.
The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.
I think we can all agree with that in general if not in detail. :aok
The sun is only 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 02, 2015, 02:14:32 PM
Well I see. I am a little surprised and saddened to see that you have decided to disqualify yourself from contributing on these topic points in the future. ;) :devil
I for one shall miss you. :cry
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Nathan60 on October 02, 2015, 03:34:08 PM
I hear that global warming is causing a spike in aquatic std's poor Krabby is rumored to be among the most chronic and oft effected as warmer waters have allowed him to travel further up the coast and he now spends his summers in in Atlantic City (https://soulmosaic.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/fiddler-crabs-feb-18-2008-326.jpg)
Krabby has Krabs Krabby has krabs Krabby no krab poor krabby
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 02, 2015, 06:08:12 PM
Good science huh. That reminds me of Koch's postulates. How does good science apply? Hell if I know, im no scientist. I keep the wife happy and the boss happier. :airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 02, 2015, 06:23:29 PM
Well I see. I am a little surprised and saddened to see that you have decided to disqualify yourself from contributing on these topic points in the future. ;) :devil
I for one shall miss you. :cry
:salute
Well, you might dismiss the likes of Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento; but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science, if you completely discount the study of markets and history of civilizations as having no interaction with economics, and if you also dismiss Hayek, Keynes, Krugman, Sowell, Hazlitt, Furguson, Reinhart, Rogoff, Acemoglu, Robinson, Diamond, Levitt, Gibbon, Cyril Robinson, and Lewis. ;)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 02, 2015, 10:57:20 PM
The problem is that their beliefs seem to be predicated on the idea that solar output is the only thing that matters. We know that's straight out roadkill.
We're they to simply say that Solar output is the primary problem, or that atmospheric chemistry is of lesser importance, sure. That's their opinion, arrived at after examination of data, awaiting validation like every other theory.
The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.
I think I could apply your comment to the voices at IPCC -and this despite the failure of their models to correlate. As for irradiance advocates, I think you overstate their position. The wholly logical hypothesis of irradiance impact on climate is that variability in the earth's primary heat source is the primary high frequency driver of climate change.
As for your argument regarding nestle, I well remember standing atop Skoga Foss is Iceland, listening to our guide. She was telling us about an evil company that wanted to dam the river, of which the Foss was a part. The brave local environmentalists were able to chase those ruthless profiteers away. It was at that point that I looked around from my vantage point. I asked her, gesturing at the downstream portion of the river, "but, if you don't dam the river, does not all this glacial water simply dump into the ocean, to be wasted for everyone?"
Crickets... The only point here: don't let fear that someone might make a little money ruin the possibility of a good solution for all. After all, Iceland has lots of Foss, lots of glacial water. Why not charge a profitable venture a decent fee for the use of one?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: -ammo- on October 03, 2015, 11:12:25 AM
Well, you might dismiss the likes of Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento; but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science, if you completely discount the study of markets and history of civilizations as having no interaction with economics, and if you also dismiss Hayek, Keynes, Krugman, Sowell, Hazlitt, Furguson, Reinhart, Rogoff, Acemoglu, Robinson, Diamond, Levitt, Gibbon, Cyril Robinson, and Lewis. ;)
Thomas Sowell and CS Lewis produce good stuff. I love reading/listening to their productions
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 04, 2015, 03:48:51 AM
I accept they're ridiculous options. But I also accept that, at some point in time, they will not be options, but necessary and desperate acts to save a crumbling way of life.
As I told Earl, it sucks. But, as contributors to the problem, we also have a responsibility to take action. If that action is, for you, simply recycling, then that's your call. I can't force you to change your mind. If it's donating to scientific research, or environmental groups, again that's your call.
However, you must accept some level of responsibility and accountability, and deal with it on your death bed, or with your god.
:airplane: If I am going to die from something I can't see coming and I really have to go, OK! Just give me a "Wing" of B-17's and let me hit Syria and maybe do the world a little good before I have to report to that big hangar in the sky!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 04, 2015, 06:16:28 AM
I think I could apply your comment to the voices at IPCC -and this despite the failure of their models to correlate. As for irradiance advocates, I think you overstate their position. The wholly logical hypothesis of irradiance impact on climate is that variability in the earth's primary heat source is the primary high frequency driver of climate change.
As for your argument regarding nestle, I well remember standing atop Skoga Foss is Iceland, listening to our guide. She was telling us about an evil company that wanted to dam the river, of which the Foss was a part. The brave local environmentalists were able to chase those ruthless profiteers away. It was at that point that I looked around from my vantage point. I asked her, gesturing at the downstream portion of the river, "but, if you don't dam the river, does not all this glacial water simply dump into the ocean, to be wasted for everyone?"
Crickets... The only point here: don't let fear that someone might make a little money ruin the possibility of a good solution for all. After all, Iceland has lots of Foss, lots of glacial water. Why not charge a profitable venture a decent fee for the use of one?
That's a good idea. You know scientists only speak their mind, and wear plastic coats. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Widewing on October 04, 2015, 09:50:06 AM
All previous climate model software will require a rewrite... The global warming apple cart has been overturned by a new discovery, it seems....
Having spent 20 plus in government "man-made global warming" is a complete, political fraud designed to consolidate power and wealth. Period!
Boo
While 20 years working for the gubment does not make anyone an expert (I have 28 years and counting), I agree its a lie. Anyone with a discerning mind can take it all in and know the the "degrowther movement" is a fallacy designed to progress a lelftist agenda based on fear. Typical
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mar on October 04, 2015, 02:36:51 PM
Yup. It's amazing what scientists will say when they see green eh? And I'll bet there are even more 'incentives' that go with it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Busher on October 04, 2015, 07:14:01 PM
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
Born 12 February 1946 (age 68)
Residence Australia
Nationality Australian
Fields Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide
Alma mater University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable Awards Eureka Prize (1995,2002), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 04, 2015, 07:19:54 PM
The oxygen byproduct come from a photon of light energy splitting a h2o molecule to use the hydrogen ion as the energy in the beginning reaction of photosynthesis I believe is is in photo system 1 by description.
edit: it is photo system 2. (http://www.felloweducators.com/brick/bio/images/bioi_photosynthesis.gif)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 04, 2015, 07:45:54 PM
... but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science,...
I will say right up front that when I saw your comment I was a little taken back. I did not say that and if you were to say that there was an inference to such a sentiment, I would say that it would be weak one.
Gibbon? Do you mean Edward Gibbon author of Decline and Fall? I would be dumb struck if you knew what my thoughts on his work are.
Again, I am not sure why you would think that I would “dismiss …, Keynes, Krugman…”
Sowell? I do not think that I have ever been persuaded by even one of his arguments. Sowell is a good example of how extreme ideologues function, psychologists call it projection. In a nut shell they attribute their own screw ups to others. His appeal is easy to see: He is easy to read and, he comes up with up one-liners that either blame others or demand more freedom from people who are somehow holding him, or other true lovers of freedom, back.
Kevin Drum recently came up with a definition of hardcore libertarianism that while unflattering is really very insightful of these mind sets:
Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.
Most of them are wrong, of course. In a truly libertarian culture, nearly all of them would be squashed like ants—mostly by the same people who are squashing them now. But the fantasy lives on regardless.
Few women share this fantasy. I don't know why, and I don't really want to play amateur sociologist and guess. Perhaps it's something as simple as the plain observation that in the more libertarian past, women were subjugated to men almost completely. Why would that seem like an appealing fantasy?
There are a number of people here, right now, that you could apply the above to and I would not be surprised if a fair number of that group, (perhaps all?), would be actually flattered to have at least a part of the first section of the definition applied to themselves!
(BTW: Has there ever really been a serious discussion of why there are so few women in the game? Do not say that there aren’t many women gamers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/22/adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys/ . Are a fair number of them playing Candy Crush? Maybe. My wife, who is probably smarter than any random combination of several of us put together, plays Candy Crush. But one point is that the few women that do log on get it faster, thicker and longer than any another newbie that happens to meander along. Maybe I am making a connection that is either too weak or not there. Just a thought for later).
Let me again state in part what I said not too long ago:
The reason why people don’t need to pay any attention to the likes of Hazlitt, Sowell, Von Mises, et al, is that because after spending about 35+ years of implementing their ideas on deregulation, government defunding, free markets, principles of self-interest, etc. etc., they brought the world to the very brink of an utter total irreversible financial ruin.
So you can look at what happened in 2008 and make an informed decision about what might work and what probably will not work in the 21st century.
You can think about the standards and regulations that worked, and those that perhaps did not. Or you can also blame the whole thing on a Fannie and Freddie Mac fantasy. There are lots of people making a lot of money selling that fantasy.
Do I believe in competition? YES.
Do I believe that governments need to set standards that allow the best ideas to rise to the top? YES.
Do I believe that people should be awarded for success? YES.
And very importantly, do I believe that it matters how people achieved their success? YES
Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento?
I was a little surprised that you didn’t list Carl Icahn.
I do not follow these types of people. Icahn is more than enough for me. I know that I live in a culture where the intensity of leadership worship, in the private sector at least, is often awarded based on the number of zeros after one’s name.
Engorging yourself at the expense of others does not count. Gluttony used to be a sin.
Wall Street used to be a place where, however imperfect, investors got rewarded for investing in the country’s future. It is now nothing more than a rigged game of financial musical chairs. Or market timing as “those in the know” would say. Trying to figure out if a P/E is realistic has been replaced by trying to figure out how rip “management” fees out of 401(k) plans. (Possibly to the tune of $17B per year now!).
My current recent favorite Wall Street scam: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/02/298370558/traders-defend-high-speed-systems-against-charges-of-rigging
BTW: my brother-law is a follower of the Austria School. He is not a hardcore libertarian though. He is one of the kindest human beings I know, they are good people.
As I was googling around to check your investment guys out (I do not want to label someone with something they are not), by random chance I came across this gem on Peter Schiff:
While 20 years working for the gubment does not make anyone an expert (I have 28 years and counting), I agree its a lie. Anyone with a discerning mind can take it all in and know the the "degrowther movement" is a fallacy designed to progress a lelftist agenda based on fear. Typical
Yup. It's amazing what scientists will say when they see green eh? And I'll bet there are even more 'incentives' that go with it.
Do you really think that the government, this government together with other foreign governments, tens of thousands of scientists and thousands of educational/research institutions could have really pulled off such a fraud? Really?
You have a lot more faith in the competence of governments than I!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chalenge on October 04, 2015, 07:59:58 PM
It's not hard to come up with examples where millions of people have fallen into step because of such a fraud. Some by force, and some not.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 04, 2015, 08:02:47 PM
Brooke, I forgot.
We disagree about a lot of stuff, but I will never accuse you of the only morbid sin for which there is no path of redemption: Being an ignorant, boring person.
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 04, 2015, 08:04:05 PM
I will say right up front that when I saw your comment I was a little taken back.
Don't get flustered -- I'm poking fun at you, not seriously suggesting that you discount all those people. It was a jest in response to your jest that I disqualified myself.
Cheer up -- we will probably have many more good debates to come. :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 04, 2015, 08:25:37 PM
Do you really think that the government, this government together with other foreign governments, tens of thousands of scientists and thousands of educational/research institutions could have really pulled off such a fraud? Really?
This question wasn't directed at me, but my answer would be "Judging from history, absolutely!" :)
Having lived a large portion of my life in academia and having lived another portion of my life going after government grants and drawing on the history of science, I would say that an establishment holding onto a status quo and working to undermine anything contrary is quite common historically. There are fads in science that are reinforced by cronyism, career-long investment in particular lines of thought, and the way government funding works. My guess is that a large portion of the hype about global warming or now "climate change" will go down in history as a big example of such. Past examples include entrenched (i.e., "settled science" and "consensus") yet as we now know erroneous opposition to: plate tectonics, evolution, germ cause of disease, bacterial cause of ulcers, not to mention ancient ones like the earth revolving around the sun or the earth being round.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 04, 2015, 08:29:58 PM
I could go on... The problem with warmists: you keep claiming to want totalk science but nonoe of you seen to have ever been within miles of it nor bothered to talk to any actual scientists.
I must say, if I were in your shoes, I do not think that I would have made a statement like that. There are a number of reasons for staying quiet, removing a certain doubt that a reader might have would be one of them.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2d1k77o.jpg)
I should mention that I forwarded your post, under the subject line heading of: Well they found you out, to a colleague of mine. (I had my post up front, followed by you observations). I am pleased to report that your analysis was a hit! (I am so tempted to say a big hit, or huge hit, but that would be a bit of an exaggeration.) Keep up the good work!
My grandmother used to say that the most important thing you can do for another human being is to bring a smile to their face. If you believe and enjoy what you are saying let me assure you that, at least for now, there are a few people that you are bringing a smile to.
The perfect Win-Win?
“Science isn’t a democracy. It’s a dictatorship. Evidence does the dictating.”
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 04, 2015, 08:34:08 PM
It's not hard to come up with examples where millions of people have fallen into step because of such a fraud. Some by force, and some not.
I think that in a general sense you are right. Thinking about it right now though, I would say that it usually involved religion or a State religion.
But think about it, trying to get 10 intellectuals to agree on the same thing, especially if they see themselves as “the expert in the field,” is almost always impossible. So when you have thousands and thousands of them agreeing on more or less the same interpretation of the evidence, you are experiencing something unique.
Is science infallible? No. But it beats pulling facts out of your ass.
“Half of the people can be part right all of the time, Some of the people can be all right part of the time. I think Abraham Lincoln said that. ‘I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,’ I said that.”
Bob Dylan
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 04, 2015, 08:37:26 PM
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.
.... PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Don't get flustered -- I'm poking fun at you, not seriously suggesting that you discount all those people. It was a jest in response to your jest that I disqualified myself.
Cheer up -- we will probably have many more good debates to come. :aok
Copy
:aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on October 04, 2015, 08:49:27 PM
Well its clear that we need to levy a carbon tax on nations with active volcanoes. Those countries shouldn't be permitted to ruin the earth for the rest of us, without paying for the measures necessary to offset all that horrible pollution spewed out by those countries.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: kappa on October 05, 2015, 02:14:25 AM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 05, 2015, 10:00:22 AM
we are on the brink of ww3, global warming doom is not important;
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 05, 2015, 10:20:12 AM
Around 97% of scientists gobally agree in that human activity have significant impact on climate. But yes - its probably a conspiracy, science is witchcraft. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 05, 2015, 10:25:04 AM
we are on the brink of ww3, global warming doom is not important;
Can I have your truck, assuming that it and I survive but you don’t? :pray
(I really do miss your missions. Reaper does a very good job, but there is a certain flavor to your missions that I miss. Maybe you do get on and I just do not know it. Life has gotten in the way and there are so few times that I can get on these days. :cry )
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 05, 2015, 11:09:55 AM
Oh you under rate yourself sir, they would make you chairman of a committee!
I must say, if I were in your shoes, I do not think that I would have made a statement like that. There are a number of reasons for staying quiet, removing a certain doubt that a reader might have would be one of them.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2d1k77o.jpg)
I should mention that I forwarded your post, under the subject line heading of: Well they found you out, to a colleague of mine. (I had my post up front, followed by you observations). I am pleased to report that your analysis was a hit! (I am so tempted to say a big hit, or huge hit, but that would be a bit of an exaggeration.) Keep up the good work!
My grandmother used to say that the most important thing you can do for another human being is to bring a smile to their face. If you believe and enjoy what you are saying let me assure you that, at least for now, there are a few people that you are bringing a smile to.
The perfect Win-Win?
“Science isn’t a democracy. It’s a dictatorship. Evidence does the dictating.”
Beautiful. I present links to a number of articles from various journals - and it's only a minor subset of all those that are out there.
Then you have the brass to come back to me with the citation of hidden sources AND that final statement about evidence.
Nice try, but apparently the fish rots from the head right down to the fraudulent little fins.
And for the record, I'm not uncomfortable going head to head with any of your "colleagues". I took on Terry Root and Paul Ehrlich back at Stanford and got nothing but sputtering out of them . "Hidden sources" don't carry a lot of weight around here. Bluff Called: Put up or shut up.
By the way, as you try to impeach sources without evidence, you also will need to impeach this growing list of former IPCC scientists who've defected from lockstep orthodoxy - Bengtsson was only the latest: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/08/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 05, 2015, 07:31:41 PM
Beautiful. I present links to a number of articles from various journals - and it's only a minor subset of all those that are out there.
Then you have the brass to come back to me with the citation of hidden sources AND that final statement about evidence.
Nice try, but apparently the fish rots from the head right down to the fraudulent little fins.
And for the record, I'm not uncomfortable going head to head with any of your "colleagues". I took on Terry Root and Paul Ehrlich back at Stanford and got nothing but sputtering out of them . "Hidden sources" don't carry a lot of weight around here. Bluff Called: Put up or shut up.
By the way, as you try to impeach sources without evidence, you also will need to impeach this growing list of former IPCC scientists who've defected from lockstep orthodoxy - Bengtsson was only the latest: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/05/08/leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus/
OK ok -- I'll be back in 2 weeks (maybe 12 days) -- I reply then
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 05, 2015, 08:17:30 PM
All right. We should have an agreement regarding the proper way to argue. I, like Brooke, am actually very well credentialed both academically (UM/Stanford) and with regard to my work, with time both in the civil (NASA) and private sector (Arvin/Komatsu/MSC/Ford - including research and advanced). Do me the favor of taking my points seriously and not just dismissing me as a fool and I am likely to give you the same consideration. In short, play the ball and not the man.
Also, I think that rule should apply generally here, since I find that the AH BBS tends to skew male, older, affluent and technical. In short, they have paid for my respect.
Do that and, while I may disagree, I will treat you with the utmost respect, even if I may be pedantic, slightly grumpy, and a stickler for distinctions of vanishing significance.
I should add, there is actually a lot of good and publicly accessible material out there and none of it is magic. Indeed, one of the first sources I looked at that led me down the path of skeptic was the MSU satellite data and it's disagreement with the IPCC models. There's a good story there, regarding the corrections used to account for variations in orbit and othere sources of error, allof which has been explored in some detail in past.
As for the pause, I'd refer you, for an excellent primer, to someone in your own camp, who is at REMSS, and is looking for the cause of the pause. It's one of the more honest assessments I've heard to date, and doesn't prematurely jump to any silly conclusions (eg, The Science is Settled). Science, by its very nature, needs to endlessly question orthodoxy. http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Bodhi on October 05, 2015, 11:45:32 PM
I (and many) are curious as to how much the oceans would supposedly rise if every bit of ice were to melt..... Surely not the approximate 200 foot rise, especially given the massive amount of ice already displacing water.....
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 05, 2015, 11:55:31 PM
See Rule #4
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 06, 2015, 12:02:45 AM
I (and many) are curious as to how much the oceans would supposedly rise if every bit of ice were to melt..... Surely not the approximate 200 foot rise, especially given the massive amount of ice already displacing water.....
It's estimated that Antarctica's ice melting would raise the oceans 200ft. The Antarctic has 90% of the world's ice and 70% of it's fresh water.
The Arctic ice floats on the sea so it wouldn't raise sea levels if it all melted.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 06, 2015, 03:37:19 AM
It's estimated that Antarctica's ice melting would raise the oceans 200ft. The Antarctic has 90% of the world's ice and 70% of it's fresh water.
The Arctic ice floats on the sea so it wouldn't raise sea levels if it all melted.
:airplane: Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming. While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 06, 2015, 07:22:55 AM
Yes a interesting point. The void in the earth could hold vast amount of water . The boys would need to figure out how and where to dam the topography to maxise its use. I asked this question a few pages back.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 06, 2015, 07:44:21 AM
:airplane: Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming. While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about!
Earl it's 6 million cubic miles of ice sitting on the ground. It would leave a hole in the air filled in by air. Good thing it's not melting. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 06, 2015, 02:17:31 PM
:airplane: Now wait a minute sir! The vast amount of fresh water on this earth is just so much and its not locked up in a chunk of ice! All the oceans of the world "feed" the atmosphere with water through evaporation, returns to earth in the form of rainfall, is cleaned and sanitized by the runoff back to the ocean and then the cycle begins all over again! and its true that there is only a certain amount of water on this earth, because the earth can't produce more water, and I know that is a concern for a lot of people about "contamination" of our water resources, but that is "local" concerns about contamination of local drinking water! I do support efforts to "clean" up our fresh water supplies on this earth! I am more concerned about that, than so called global warming. While its true, there are a lot of ice on the earth and if it melted, certainly would certainly cause the oceans to rise a little, because the space that it occupied on this earth would then just fill in and there wouldn't be a significant rise in the oceans sea levels. There is a formula for computing how much ice it takes to replace a square foot of space with water, but I don't know and don't care what that is. The amount of ice is known, I suppose, by measuring the thickness and width of the ice caps and if that disappeared, there would be a huge "hole" where the ice is now. The ice melting would replace that space, therefore, in my view, would not cause all this flooding that some people are concerned about!
Yes it would.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 06, 2015, 02:19:34 PM
Earl it's 6 million cubic miles of ice sitting on the ground. It would leave a hole in the air filled in by air. Good thing it's not melting. :D
:airplane: Sorry, that won't wash sir! all the ice surrounding the poles are sitting on hard ground all its own, yet there is miles and miles of ice attached to that, otherwise it would move around! I really don't know anything about the ice caps at the poles, other than that is some place I don't want to visit!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 06, 2015, 02:26:17 PM
:airplane: Sorry, that won't wash sir! all the ice surrounding the poles are sitting on hard ground all its own, yet there is miles and miles of ice attached to that, otherwise it would move around! I really don't know anything about the ice caps at the poles, other than that is some place I don't want to visit!
I haven't been there either. :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 06, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
Are we arguing that we can delay the earth's cycle of cooling and warming or that we can stop the cycle? In the former it will happen no matter what we do. In the latter, did we figure out how to create one of those science fiction space opera planet buster weapons already?
All of the scientists in consensus that something horrible might be happening which a nebulous "we" might be able to delay, cannot give a fixed date other than some time after they are dead and gone. And have made all of their money and prestige, then enjoyed that money and prestige by agreeing to the consensus.
If you don't believe this planet goes through a cooling and warming cycle then yes this is a disaster "in your mind". If according to a consensus of scientists this planet goes through cooling and warming cycles with dramatic results at both ends. Why are some trying to make money and increase their power and influence over others with the equivalent of trying to sell ice to Eskimos because it's a warm day?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 06, 2015, 05:14:36 PM
Are we arguing that we can delay the earth's cycle of cooling and warming or that we can stop the cycle? In the former it will happen no matter what we do. In the latter, did we figure out how to create one of those science fiction space opera planet buster weapons already?
All of the scientists in consensus that something horrible might be happening which a nebulous "we" might be able to delay, cannot give a fixed date other than some time after they are dead and gone. And have made all of their money and prestige, then enjoyed that money and prestige by agreeing to the consensus.
If you don't believe this planet goes through a cooling and warming cycle then yes this is a disaster "in your mind". If according to a consensus of scientists this planet goes through cooling and warming cycles with dramatic results at both ends. Why are some trying to make money and increase their power and influence over others with the equivalent of trying to sell ice to Eskimos because it's a warm day?
The variation of the temperature is not the key problem, its about how fast it goes. And also the fact that a lot of people lives along the coast lines, if the ocean level rise it will have huge consequenses, regardless of whats causing it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MiloMorai on October 06, 2015, 05:36:35 PM
Correct Zimme, it is the rate of change.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 06, 2015, 06:33:57 PM
When you visit enough of the global warming consensus agreement web sites you run into two repeated fixed in stone projections.
1. - The year 2100 as the best estimate when all the bad stuff will start killing us. Just long enough for everyone to make their money and enjoy it. Or accumulate power to "humanitarianly" protect us from ourselves from the coming biblical disaster by the year 2100. Along with the ability to levy taxes on a global stage to redistribute wealth from the first world nations to the less privileged to protect us from ourselves and 2100. These very same groups laugh at the end of the world religious groups who declare the rapture is upon us about every 20 years. Those religious groups ain't got nothing on this world wide religious group called "The Consensus".
2. - A nebulous statement in the vein of what I've included from one of these sites below which is a veiled support of a world government. Local governments are incapable of meeting the looming biblical catastrophe because they are only concerned about local interests. National governments, well many seem to have political parties in the midst of trying to give allegiance to the UN. The end is coming in 2100 and only those who believe in the "Consensus" as globally minded citizens are capable of saving us.
But wait a minute, all them "Consensus" weenies will be long gone and in the grave by 2100....hmmmmm.... :O
Below is some beautiful syntactical crapola but, it's the endgame nebulous solution that all of these concerned scientific consensus groups come up with. Local is no longer enough because in 2100 this will be global, and beyond the scope of nationalism. Try this out on China if you don't have a really big army today. But, 2100 is 80 years away......
From: Yale e360
Local governments cannot be expected to take the lead. The problems created by sea level rise are international and national, not local, in scope. Local governments of coastal towns (understandably) follow the self-interests of coastal property owners and developers, so preservation of buildings and maintaining tax base is inevitably a very high priority. In addition, the resources needed to respond to sea level rise will be far beyond those available to local communities.
Responding to long-term sea level rise will pose unprecedented challenges to the international community. Economic and humanitarian disasters can be avoided, but only through wise, forward-looking planning. Tough decisions will need to be made regarding the allocation of resources and response to natural disasters. Let us hope that our political leadership can provide the bold vision and strong leadership that will be required to implement a reasoned response.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 06, 2015, 06:52:53 PM
Even China is on board the train, 97% of scientist worldwide also. Pretty much US and its oil industry that tries to deny it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 06, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
But as I see it, they can be right and they can be wrong, and since nothing bad happen if they are wrong but it will be disastrous if they are right only a fool will assume they are wrong. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on October 06, 2015, 08:24:54 PM
I live in a desert that used to be sea bottom before there were even humans. Sorry, not buying the hype. I'm all in favor of reducing/eliminating toxic pollution but the climate will change whether we do anything or not. What makes us human is that we will adapt to the change and thrive rather than simply going extinct.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 06, 2015, 08:51:05 PM
The variation of the temperature is not the key problem,
If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.
Quote
its about how fast it goes. And also the fact that a lot of people lives along the coast lines, if the ocean level rise it will have huge consequenses, regardless of whats causing it.
The predictions (according the numerous references cited in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise ) of sea level rise by 2100 range from 0.2 m at the lowest to 5 m as the highest upper limit. The average of the values given seems to be about 1.3 m. I suspect that mankind can handle that over 80 years, given that tidal min to max is more than that in many coastal areas and given that normal beach waves min to max are often that size.
I'm a lot less worried about sea level rise (especially since it is so slow) than the potential catastrophic things listed in the 1st paragraph. But, given that the earth did just fine during periods of many times the CO2 we have now and much higher temperatures that we have now, and given that an ice age is enormously more harmful for mankind than warming, and given that periodic ice ages are not speculation, I think it is possible that more CO2 is a good thing.
Regardless, a lot of this global-warming furor is based on models. I've done a lot of modelling both in academia and professionally (various adaptive models, models of neural systems, models of market systems), and as a result I am highly skeptical of the predictive power of climate models. They have, to first order approximation, one zillion adjustable parameters. Models with lots of adjustable parameters, while they might fit past data very well, might very well have no predictive power.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 06, 2015, 11:31:21 PM
:aok
We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife. I bet that would scare everyone. :noid
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on October 07, 2015, 03:35:07 AM
We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife. I bet that would scare everyone. :noid
:airplane: At one of our national food chain stores here in my area, I ask the manager one day, how many days food do you have on hand at any one time? His reply, we keep a 7 day supply of food on the shelves at any one time! Now my question is, should we have a "computer" shutdown for a lengthy period of time, What do we then do for food? I shutter to think what would go on if no one could run down to the groc store and pick up their normal supply of food!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 04:20:03 AM
If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.
The predictions (according the numerous references cited in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise ) of sea level rise by 2100 range from 0.2 m at the lowest to 5 m as the highest upper limit. The average of the values given seems to be about 1.3 m. I suspect that mankind can handle that over 80 years, given that tidal min to max is more than that in many coastal areas and given that normal beach waves min to max are often that size.
I'm a lot less worried about sea level rise (especially since it is so slow) than the potential catastrophic things listed in the 1st paragraph. But, given that the earth did just fine during periods of many times the CO2 we have now and much higher temperatures that we have now, and given that an ice age is enormously more harmful for mankind than warming, and given that periodic ice ages are not speculation, I think it is possible that more CO2 is a good thing.
Regardless, a lot of this global-warming furor is based on models. I've done a lot of modelling both in academia and professionally (various adaptive models, models of neural systems, models of market systems), and as a result I am highly skeptical of the predictive power of climate models. They have, to first order approximation, one zillion adjustable parameters. Models with lots of adjustable parameters, while they might fit past data very well, might very well have no predictive power.
It is a very complex thing to predict and all serious scientist admit that. Sea level rising is as you say probably not the worst problem we have to deal with. Pollution of air and water is a much more serious problem today, a lot of cities have an envirorment harmful to humans. Droughts and shortage of water is also at risk of becoming more severe and it will hit poor countries first and might spark armed conflicts.
Other serious issues we will have to deal with is that increased wealth in the 3rd world countries will increase the demand for oil and other natural rescources, if the average human by 2050 use as much oil as the average american does today oil production need to increase by nearly 1000%. Its not hard to figure out that it will be very challenging to do that.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 07:06:01 AM
:airplane: At one of our national food chain stores here in my area, I ask the manager one day, how many days food do you have on hand at any one time? His reply, we keep a 7 day supply of food on the shelves at any one time! Now my question is, should we have a "computer" shutdown for a lengthy period of time, What do we then do for food? I shutter to think what would go on if no one could run down to the groc store and pick up their normal supply of food!
Now that is scary. No need to worry about co 2 when riots for survival arrive. Fresh water will also be a problem. No living in the desert unless you want to drink fog and filtered urine (no whineing either) :devil .
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 08:39:20 AM
We need a predictive model of food shortages, disease, and social strife. I bet that would scare everyone. :noid
Food Shortages? Nah, there will be too many poor people who cannot afford to buy enough, and they are using GMO's to grow food faster and better. The whole GMO conspiracy that they are dangerous is a myth, and studies prove that. Humans ability to keep food available is of course sparked by profits more than anything. Think about how many chickens a Chic Fil A goes through and they aren't even fully multinational company yet. They will keep food prosperous for a long time. I don't think we would have to worry about any famines in our life time.
Disease is becoming more and more redundant now than ever before. While the news media my have you thinking differently, vaccines, stem cells, and current medicine technology, and 3D organ printing, are getting 100Xs better. In the next 15 years, I expect we will have a cure for cancer or a treatment that will kill it completely. I have already invested in ISR a Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds producer company that is doing an enormous job of stopping cancer and killing brain tumors before it spreads. These types of technology are going to continue to develop and continue to rid people of disease. Cancer is the biggest disease we have to face today, it is our generations weakness. We must stop cancer or it will continue to wipe out our population. On the positive side, disease has drastically decreased, HPV and HIV have drastically decreased, and our society is becoming much more aware of disease and prevention.
Social Strife! There is your winner!
This is the BIGGEST problem our society faces today. The social technology and Social Media has changed the way people perceive the world. We can record our every move on social media. We can televise all of the terrible events and tragedies that happen all day long, we have an entire internet at our fingertips to share ideas. This stresses people out and scares them, it puts them in a frantic state of caution and worry. Social mental health will become a big problem facing developed nations. We care too much about what other people think of us. We care too much about being successful in the eyes of other people. What we are seeing is that our benefits are not outweighing the growth in technology or profits. Our perception that higher education = higher pay is becoming a false reality. We have young people paying 25% in taxes and student loans on top of it, this is crippling our young people. We are killing the growth in our people by providing them with too little. Half of the United States workforce make under 30K, that is preposterous! A medium 57K earnings per household is a sad sad statistic in America that should be a huge indicator of why mental health is such a big issue. Once that makes an impact on a nation you see social strife, stress, ambiguity towards social standards, hatred of our government, the split of right or left. These are issues that our country stresses over and it impacts people's lives. Mental Health and drug usage are becoming KEY indicators that our people are suffering. IF we continue to raise the cost of healthcare, IF we continue to tax our youth at enormous rates, IF we continue to devalue our employment, IF we continue to let social media dictate our thoughts and emotions, We are going to see a mental health catastrophe and a society full of people with no motivation and no prosperity.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 08:44:18 AM
Guys shutup and join my clan on Clash of Clans. GLAM REAPERS
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 08:46:41 AM
If there are dire things triggered at a particular C02 concentration or at a particular temperature (such as ocean acidification, or melting of methane hydrates, or reversal of ocean currents that warm Europe), it can be more that rate.
They say that's maybe how the permian extinction got rolling.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 09:04:21 AM
Last winter I listened to a vice news ad about scientists using viruses to fight cancer. HIV and meningitis I believe.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 09:05:48 AM
There is also a red guy who speaks logic but I save that for Facebook.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 09:36:04 AM
Food Shortages? Nah, there will be too many poor people who cannot afford to buy enough, and they are using GMO's to grow food faster and better. The whole GMO conspiracy that they are dangerous is a myth, and studies prove that. Humans ability to keep food available is of course sparked by profits more than anything. Think about how many chickens a Chic Fil A goes through and they aren't even fully multinational company yet. They will keep food prosperous for a long time. I don't think we would have to worry about any famines in our life time.
Disease is becoming more and more redundant now than ever before. While the news media my have you thinking differently, vaccines, stem cells, and current medicine technology, and 3D organ printing, are getting 100Xs better. In the next 15 years, I expect we will have a cure for cancer or a treatment that will kill it completely. I have already invested in ISR a Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds producer company that is doing an enormous job of stopping cancer and killing brain tumors before it spreads. These types of technology are going to continue to develop and continue to rid people of disease. Cancer is the biggest disease we have to face today, it is our generations weakness. We must stop cancer or it will continue to wipe out our population. On the positive side, disease has drastically decreased, HPV and HIV have drastically decreased, and our society is becoming much more aware of disease and prevention.
Social Strife! There is your winner!
This is the BIGGEST problem our society faces today. The social technology and Social Media has changed the way people perceive the world. We can record our every move on social media. We can televise all of the terrible events and tragedies that happen all day long, we have an entire internet at our fingertips to share ideas. This stresses people out and scares them, it puts them in a frantic state of caution and worry. Social mental health will become a big problem facing developed nations. We care too much about what other people think of us. We care too much about being successful in the eyes of other people. What we are seeing is that our benefits are not outweighing the growth in technology or profits. Our perception that higher education = higher pay is becoming a false reality. We have young people paying 25% in taxes and student loans on top of it, this is crippling our young people. We are killing the growth in our people by providing them with too little. Half of the United States workforce make under 30K, that is preposterous! A medium 57K earnings per household is a sad sad statistic in America that should be a huge indicator of why mental health is such a big issue. Once that makes an impact on a nation you see social strife, stress, ambiguity towards social standards, hatred of our government, the split of right or left. These are issues that our country stresses over and it impacts people's lives. Mental Health and drug usage are becoming KEY indicators that our people are suffering. IF we continue to raise the cost of healthcare, IF we continue to tax our youth at enormous rates, IF we continue to devalue our employment, IF we continue to let social media dictate our thoughts and emotions, We are going to see a mental health catastrophe and a society full of people with no motivation and no prosperity.
I'm guessing public education is our current biggest problem.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 09:45:42 AM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 09:53:20 AM
Sys Error, your error is that you think that more information will persuade anyone over this topic. If anything more information will only increase the polarization of views. What is at work here, I believe, (and I'm sure you could find a behavioral psychology study to back this up, but really, whats the point?) is a form of tribalism. There are people who believe that the majority scientific opinion that you cite is bogus. There is nothing you could link to or declare that is going to make any difference in that belief. Everything you post is immediately discounted as ideologically driven dissembling.
It seems self evident to me that we live in the anthropocene. I do not believe that climate science is the same as Lysenkoism. The world is a small place and it is getting smaller.
It's called confirmation bias.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 09:58:03 AM
I'm guessing public education is our current biggest problem.
Blaming societies problems on public education is an arrogant and ignorant ideology full of straw-man arguments.
That being said, the increasing cost of Intuition of higher education is directly the fault of the government for allowing them to do this. On top of that, the government knows that people are going to college more than ever so they know people will take out loans and pay a fortune on interest alone.
The problem is a society that can be bought and lobbied. The problem is acceptance The problem is taking advantage of the people and watching that come back to bite our society in the arse.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 10:48:48 AM
First of all it's not an ideology, it's an opinion.
Second, there are no straw man fallacies in my statement but your quote is a classic example. Let me know if you don't see it.
Education can happen anywhere. :D
No, it was a strawman argument because your opinion was directed toward nothing I said. You said "it must be the public educations fault" that is a strawman fallacy because it has nothing to do with any of the paragraphs I wrote before. You attack all of those problems, or me, based on public education and that is simply not true. In fact our education has only become 100% better based on the research we can find on the internet and the ability to search for information more quickly.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 11:15:30 AM
Finding information does not help if you dont know how to use it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 11:24:47 AM
Finding information does not help if you dont know how to use it.
Just like education means nothing if you have nothing to show for it, right?
I could study and read books all day long, learn about the profession, understand the concepts very well, but non of that matters if I don't get awarded credit for it. Guess who gets the job, the one who has the credit that proves he did it. That's how we value education.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 11:36:18 AM
No, it was a strawman argument because your opinion was directed toward nothing I said. You said "it must be the public educations fault" that is a strawman fallacy because it has nothing to do with any of the paragraphs I wrote before. You attack all of those problems, or me, based on public education and that is simply not true. In fact our education has only become 100% better based on the research we can find on the internet and the ability to search for information more quickly.
Notice that you had to rephrase my statement and give it a different meaning to attack it? That's a clue. You attack a statement I didn't make. It's the classic straw man fallacy. You are supposed to avoid those.
You said the biggest problem today is social strife. I said I think public education is a bigger problem. Do you see how that is related? We both give opinions on the big problem facing us?
You might even consider education to be central to discussing, never mind solving, all the other problems you mentioned.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 07, 2015, 11:37:37 AM
They say that's maybe how the permian extinction got rolling.
But the changes we are talking about here are paltry in magnitude compared to what they say was necessary to bring about the Permian extinction. There, they debate causes like volcanic events that created a lava-and-ash field about 1/4 the size of Russia, which -- just as one consequence among many others that are perhaps more significant -- melted a lot of methane hydrate and released a lot of CO2 quickly.
We are talking about CO2 going from 400 ppm now to (if you burn all oil, natural gas, and coal reserves -- all of it) 800 ppm. That's not high for the history of the earth, and there are plenty of periods with much higher CO2 that don't seem to have issues with it: 2000 ppm during the time of the dinosaurs, 5000 ppm during the Cambrian.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 11:43:52 AM
Nature (and Humans) are adaptable as long as we get enough time to do it. A small but rapid change have bigger impact than a big and slow. And main problem isnt that climate change is going to kill us all. Its about what effects it have on the society. Severe drought and other weather related disaster might casue unrest and violence. As always rich countries will be able to cope better than poor ones.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 11:51:07 AM
Notice that you had to rephrase my statement and give it a different meaning to attack it? That's a clue. You attack a statement I didn't make. It's the classic straw man fallacy. You are supposed to avoid those.
You said the biggest problem today is social strife. I said I think public education is a bigger problem. Do you see how that is related? We both give opinions on the big problem facing us?
You might even consider education to be central to discussing, never mind solving, all the other problems you mentioned.
You didn't phrase it as saying that education was a "bigger problem" in regards to solving these social strifes. Your statement could be interpreted many different ways. It was a fallacy to correlate my statements with a single problem that may or may not be the reason towards social strifes. But your statement wasn't directed specifically toward social strifes, so therefore I was confused with your statement.
Let me ask you a question. What's the bigger problem? CEOs and Hedgefund managers losing a small portion of net profits so that their employees can afford to live a decent life? Or telling every highschooler to go get a college degree to prove their worth, only to be disregarded as (our education system sucks) so now college graduates aren't making money, highschool graduates aren't making money, and of course it's the educations fault because companies don't want to pay people enough to support themselves.
So you tell me how education is going to make companies pay better instead of allowing our socitey to slowly be devalued? While dipshits makes 40M a year.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 07, 2015, 11:56:14 AM
Nature (and Humans) are adaptable as long as we get enough time to do it. A small but rapid change have bigger impact than a big and slow. And main problem isnt that climate change is going to kill us all. Its about what effects it have on the society. Severe drought and other weather related disaster might casue unrest and violence. As always rich countries will be able to cope better than poor ones.
But we are talking about a predicted change that is, on human time scales, very slow, as well as being, on historical time scales, very small. Also, it might not even happen to the extent that models predict, as they have been significantly wrong in their predictions.
What can also cause unrest and violence is societies lacking economic progress. You can spend $1 trillion on a fruitless attempt to stop global warming (which might not even come to pass or might be a world-saving benefit if it helps avert a future ice age); or you can spend $1 trillion into growing economies.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 11:56:44 AM
Nature (and Humans) are adaptable as long as we get enough time to do it. A small but rapid change have bigger impact than a big and slow. And main problem isnt that climate change is going to kill us all. Its about what effects it have on the society. Severe drought and other weather related disaster might casue unrest and violence. As always rich countries will be able to cope better than poor ones.
it might be easier to move a grass and bambo hut in bangladesh then say hong kong?
you can not blame the government for higher tuition can you? Giving out loans like candy, telling people to go to school when what they really need to do is work hard at a goal, allowing the competitive universitys to have growth wars to attract more students where outrageous tuition is more than matched by cost of room and board. The kids signed the contract it was up to them to understand what is going on. p.s. high school is a joke for many, that money could have been spent with career training. period.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Aspen on October 07, 2015, 12:07:00 PM
I'm starting an Isoprene farm and then I will franchise the model. To hedge my bets, I'm also knitting designer wool caps in case the alarmists go back to the impending ice age headlines like the ones I grew up with.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 12:07:21 PM
Let me ask you a question. What's the bigger problem? CEOs and Hedgefund managers losing a small portion of net profits so that their employees can afford to live a decent life? Or telling every highschooler to go get a college degree to prove their worth, only to be disregarded as (our education system sucks) so now college graduates aren't making money, highschool graduates aren't making money, and of course it's the educations fault because companies don't want to pay people enough to support themselves.
So you tell me how education is going to make companies pay better instead of allowing our socitey to slowly be devalued? While dipshits makes 40M a year.
The bigger problem is telling high school students they should go to a college they can't afford to get a degree they can't use. Too bad high school students didn't learn better decision making in 12 years of school. How did that happen? :D
Who do you think should decide how much money your employment is worth, besides you? Who picked your job?
What is personal responsibility?
But we're off topic now. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on October 07, 2015, 12:11:11 PM
I'm thinking it's a bit beyond confirmation bias, at least they way I understand confirmation bias. I would describe confirmation bias as the human tendency to seek out information that confirms our preconceptions which seems different from being steel plated against all information that contradicts those preconceptions. Also the level of emotion that attends seems of a different class than the unintentional thumb on the scale that I think confirmation bias describes. But hey! Its all in the same ballpark of deficiency in human thinking.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Last I check every snot nosed college graduguate had to prove his worth. The paper gets you a interview, if you worked hard. The time in college is in your skill set, if you worked hard. You will keep your job, if you work hard. Even then you are working on someones ship, not yours, he can get rid of you any time she wants. And you can leave anytime you want.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 12:16:15 PM
But we are talking about a predicted change that is, on human time scales, very slow, as well as being, on historical time scales, very small. Also, it might not even happen to the extent that models predict, as they have been significantly wrong in their predictions.
What can also cause unrest and violence is societies lacking economic progress. You can spend $1 trillion on a fruitless attempt to stop global warming (which might not even come to pass or might be a world-saving benefit if it helps avert a future ice age); or you can spend $1 trillion into growing economies.
Its a valid standpoint. But i have to disagree with you because of the simple fact that its not realistic to believe that 11 billion people can live the life as we do in the west. The system is based on that a minority is rich and use a lot of rescourses while the majority use only a fraction. It would require that a lot of rescourses used by the rich countries is diverted to the poor countries and i have hard to believe that it would be accepted by the people in the rich countries.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 12:18:25 PM
But the changes we are talking about here are paltry in magnitude compared to what they say was necessary to bring about the Permian extinction. There, they debate causes like volcanic events that created a lava-and-ash field about 1/4 the size of Russia, which -- just as one consequence among many others that are perhaps more significant -- melted a lot of methane hydrate and released a lot of CO2 quickly.
We are talking about CO2 going from 400 ppm now to (if you burn all oil, natural gas, and coal reserves -- all of it) 800 ppm. That's not high for the history of the earth, and there are plenty of periods with much higher CO2 that don't seem to have issues with it: 2000 ppm during the time of the dinosaurs, 5000 ppm during the Cambrian.
Are you replying to yourself because you're the one who introduced the subject into the conversation? All I said was they think maybe that (atmospheric warming, oceanic stagnation, sulfur dioxide, methane thawing) is what caused the permian extinction. None of this has anything to do with more immediate problems such as none of you have yet joined my clan and cannabis is still illegal.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 12:39:31 PM
I'm reminded of my senior year in high school. Half of it was spent at career training at the local community college where I worked hard and was a four point student. The other half of my day was back at school. I had a few classes some I did not need to graduate. They had me by rule that I had to attend or I would not graduate. So I would get my game face on and attend, participate I did not. Boy that upset the teacher, I wondered why she plucked her eyebrows out and had to use eye liner to paint them back on. Anyhoo, I went on to our major university, got scholarships and grants, loved the library, graduated with ten grand in the bank and no debt, and was working before graduation. I got a ten thousand dollar raise after one year, after I told them I was considering taking another job offer.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 12:51:04 PM
And then you gay married your beloved library.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 12:53:13 PM
The bigger problem is telling high school students they should go to a college they can't afford to get a degree they can't use. Too bad high school students didn't learn better decision making in 12 years of school. How did that happen? :D
Who do you think should decide how much money your employment is worth, besides you? Who picked your job?
What is personal responsibility?
But we're off topic now. :D
There is a big difference between perception and real life. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to develop life skills that allow them to succeed in America. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to act like an adult. You perceive that every 14-20 YO is going to be a business owner or a lawyer or an doctor without first going to college. You perceive that these kids could actually find a job right after high school for them to provide for themselves. You perceive that an 18 YO is suppose to understand what debt feels like, even though they've never handled more than $1000 in their life.
Lets talk about what is really happening. If students do not go to college after high school, they will NOT find a job that can A. support themselves to live on their own, B. afford college to gain a better a paying job with the job they have. Most of the time worked they work Fed up schedules that make them inept from going to another job or taking classes. Students who do graduate from college are having a hard time finding jobs that allow them to leave their parents house. 50% of the population make under 30K a year. We need different kinds of people in this world, not just business people, Lawyers, and politicians. If they work 8 hours a day, they deserve a livable wage.
As far as I'm concerned, we are creating a society where working hard gets you a .50 BS raise after a year while reaping no respect from anyone in the organization. (for retail chains)
We are killing the motivation of the workforce by taking advantage of people, their livelihood, education, and work ethic. NO ONE wants to work hard for 7.50 an hour, and thats why it shows when you go to a store because the people there could give a F less about their jobs.
MENTAL HEALTH.
How many people can we place in poverty before they all lose their minds?
Is this the society we want to create?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 01:08:51 PM
There is a big difference between perception and real life. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to develop life skills that allow them to succeed in America. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to act like an adult. You perceive that every 14-20 YO is going to be a business owner or a lawyer or an doctor without first going to college. You perceive that these kids could actually find a job right after high school for them to provide for themselves. You perceive that an 18 YO is suppose to understand what debt feels like, even though they've never handled more than $1000 in their life.
Lets talk about what is really happening. If students do not go to college after high school, they will NOT find a job that can A. support themselves to live on their own, B. afford college to gain a better a paying job with the job they have. Most of the time worked they work Fed up schedules that make them inept from going to another job or taking classes. Students who do graduate from college are having a hard time finding jobs that allow them to leave their parents house. 50% of the population make under 30K a year. We need different kinds of people in this world, not just business people, Lawyers, and politicians. If they work 8 hours a day, they deserve a livable wage.
As far as I'm concerned, we are creating a society where working hard gets you a .50 BS raise after a year while reaping no respect from anyone in the organization. (for retail chains)
We are killing the motivation of the workforce by taking advantage of people, their livelihood, education, and work ethic. NO ONE wants to work hard for 7.50 an hour, and thats why it shows when you go to a store because the people there could give a F less about their jobs.
MENTAL HEALTH.
How many people can we place in poverty before they all lose their minds?
Is this the society we want to create?
heating, plumbing, electrical. all jobs that are booming now, can be taught in high school. a great career of independence and financial security await. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 01:16:28 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 01:25:13 PM
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
Here are some stats for 25-35 year olds based on education. Of course the #s are simply measures and not the same for everyone, but non the less they represent what education can give you in the future.
Now, compare them with 18 YO salaries right out of high school, they are looking at roughly 27K or less per year. It takes a person 5-7 years with no college degree to make 30K per year. At a 30K per year salary, you cannot afford college, you cannot afford insurance, phone bills, cars, babies, rent, you name it, you cannot afford very much at all. We are literally screaming at the older generation to wake up and realize this problem, but your only argument is that we are lazy. This is why America is staggering while the rest of the world is catching up to us. The stats are clear as day, just like reading a businesses financial ratios, they tell the story.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 07, 2015, 01:28:21 PM
Assuming one subscribes to a capitalist view of the economy, we're still left with the fact that as more people are in search of jobs (population growth), the value of those jobs will be lessened, and the cost of living will simultaneously increase.
Unless you accept people going hungry and living in poverty as simply part of the cost of your standard of living, it's a problem that must be addressed.
Here, capitalism has utterly failed. Especially when more and more jobs are becoming partially or entirely automated, cutting out vast swaths of jobs, further reducing the value of the remaining labor as people scramble to find jobs.
Additionally, you seem to be thinking from the stand point that an education should be a purely practical matter. How do do taxes, how to handle life, simply how to survive. This is not the starting assumption for most of the Western world, where not only a basic education, but a higher education is increasingly being viewed as a fundamental right.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 01:37:56 PM
Here are some stats for 25-35 year olds based on education. Of course the #s are simply measures and not the same for everyone, but non the less they represent what education can give you in the future.
Now, compare them with 18 YO salaries right out of high school, they are looking at roughly 27K or less per year. It takes a person 5-7 years with no college degree to make 30K per year. At a 30K per year salary, you cannot afford college, you cannot afford insurance, phone bills, cars, babies, rent, you name it, you cannot afford very much at all. We are literally screaming at the older generation to wake up and realize this problem, but your only argument is that we are lazy. This is why America is staggering while the rest of the world is catching up to us. The stats are clear as day, just like reading a businesses financial ratios, they tell the story.
They're doing it bassackward, you're supposed to get your education and then move to the states. If I go to the doctor and his english isn't labored and unbroken I question his credentials because I've either traveled back in time or this guy is no doctor.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 07, 2015, 01:44:31 PM
Additionally, you seem to be thinking from the stand point that an education should be a purely practical matter. How do do taxes, how to handle life, simply how to survive. This is not the starting assumption for most of the Western world
Sir that view may be well and good for most of the Western world but it is unamerican. :old:
An american education is a capital investment. Not some hippy enlightenment commune.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 02:13:09 PM
There is a big difference between perception and real life. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to develop life skills that allow them to succeed in America. You perceive that a 14-18 YO is suppose to act like an adult. You perceive that every 14-20 YO is going to be a business owner or a lawyer or an doctor without first going to college. You perceive that these kids could actually find a job right after high school for them to provide for themselves. You perceive that an 18 YO is suppose to understand what debt feels like, even though they've never handled more than $1000 in their life.
Before we talk about what's really happening let's look at all the new straw men you just posted and try to find where I said any of those things. Then we'll talk. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 02:24:59 PM
Before we talk about what's really happening let's look at all the new straw men you just posted and try to find where I said any of those things. Then we'll talk. :D
No, you believe that a kid right out of high school is suppose to be well adept to living like an adult and they are suppose to be able to financially support themselves with a job after graduation. Who's fault is it that they are 18 yo and naive? That's a stupid argument. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Take out a loan and afford college to afford to live, or get a job making $8/hr, spend 7 years to reach 30K and that's about it for them. This is a different socitey than you grew up in. The only strawman is what's left inside the kid after he gets taken advantage of for 8 years and still cannot afford to live decently.
The old age workforce in America is a potato peeling joke.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 07, 2015, 02:50:40 PM
At what age do you think kids should be considered adults?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 02:52:52 PM
25.
I mean if they cannot afford to live out of there parents house with the current job market and wages being paid than they are obviously not adults, IMO.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 07, 2015, 04:10:39 PM
so 97% of 77 scientists, (75) from a pool of over 3400 originally asked, believe in MMGW.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 07, 2015, 04:12:43 PM
So global warming is a good cover for politicians and other wealthy interested parties who are not managing outcomes very well anymore when it comes to things as simple as keeping work forces employed.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 04:21:47 PM
Take out a loan and afford college to afford to live (bad idea; Debt for housing and food is lost time.)
or get a job making $8/hr, (What job is this? handing out flyers? they better pay overtime because im going to work 60 hours a week handing out flyers.)
spend 7 years to reach 30K (7 years? yeah they are called doctors.)
and that's about it for them. (but some day ill own my own flyer company.)
This is a different socitey than you grew up in. The only strawman is what's left inside the kid after he gets taken advantage of for 8 years and still cannot afford to live decently. (8 years making 8$/hr? i bet he would be fired if hes is still hanging around after 8 years)
************The workforce in America is a potato peeling joke.************** (well said)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 05:30:01 PM
90% of retail jobs start at 7.50 to $8 an hour in America. You work there for 3 years and see a 75 cent raise max. Dont believe me? Ask around.
Doctors are taking out hge amounts in loans to become doctors. That is 7 years of med school. High school graduates with no college degrees take 7 years if they are lucky to even make 30K per year. According to the chart I've posted that # is declining. Ask someone who makes 35K per year, single, how they are doing. Probably not so shabby. If these kids don't have parent support, they now become nothing more than peasants. Stats and measurements have indicated that our middle class and lower class are being pushed down.
Some day I'll own my own flyer company is right. I plan to be a business owner and I'll have a business that supports American workers and America. diddly this Chinease take over roadkill.
The time value of money has substantially increased over the last 20 years. Gas has been a huge factor that pays into people's pay checks. If we don't battle the time value of money, and simply keep wages low, it will have a grand effect on the society around us.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 06:41:45 PM
This is why people cry for growth and not more regulation.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zoney on October 07, 2015, 06:43:11 PM
90% of retail jobs start at 7.50 to $8 an hour in America. You work there for 3 years and see a 75 cent raise max. Dont believe me? Ask around.
Doctors are taking out hge amounts in loans to become doctors. That is 7 years of med school. High school graduates with no college degrees take 7 years if they are lucky to even make 30K per year. According to the chart I've posted that # is declining. Ask someone who makes 35K per year, single, how they are doing. Probably not so shabby. If these kids don't have parent support, they now become nothing more than peasants. Stats and measurements have indicated that our middle class and lower class are being pushed down.
Some day I'll own my own flyer company is right. I plan to be a business owner and I'll have a business that supports American workers and America. diddly this Chinease take over roadkill.
The time value of money has substantially increased over the last 20 years. Gas has been a huge factor that pays into people's pay checks. If we don't battle the time value of money, and simply keep wages low, it will have a grand effect on the society around us.
Awesome, well there you have it folks, the solution to global warming, pay people better and forgive them their college debts along with lowering the price of gas. Problem solved.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 07, 2015, 07:17:54 PM
i Know... that was prob violation some rules..
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 08:13:57 PM
Awesome, well there you have it folks, the solution to global warming, pay people better and forgive them their college debts along with lowering the price of gas. Problem solved.
Yup!! Pay no attention to reason and Logic. That's the problem trying to have a discussion with people on forums who absolutely do not understand the points I am making, and then generalize what I wrote with a completely ignorant statement. You have 1 position and no reasoning to an outside idealolgy. This is why "global warming" will will always be an issue because people simply refuse to understand how to generally fix it, and instead stick to BS conspiracies and every other stupid scenario because people cannot accept the fact that they are wrong.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 08:40:02 PM
Yup!! Pay no attention to reason and Logic. That's the problem trying to have a discussion with people on forums who absolutely do not understand the points I am making, and then generalize what I wrote with a completely ignorant statement. You have 1 position and no reasoning to an outside idealolgy. This is why "global warming" will will always be an issue because people simply refuse to understand how to generally fix it, and instead stick to BS conspiracies and every other stupid scenario because people cannot accept the fact that they are wrong.
No the problem is ..... wait for it....... a theory is not a fact ( please check scientific doctrine) and people are claiming fact at the detriment of growth ( job/ wages). We hear your argument, you do not heard ours. If you want to talk globalization of the world economy that is another topic.
I'll start. The life of an american will be based on our freedoms and intlectal rights. You will be better served using our education system to get a skilled job that embraces the global model. Tough times for the lazy and losers.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on October 07, 2015, 09:39:00 PM
Here you go boys: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/ (http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/)
This is the Approved manual.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 07, 2015, 10:12:05 PM
No the problem is ..... wait for it....... a theory is not a fact ( please check scientific doctrine) and people are claiming fact at the detriment of growth ( job/ wages). We hear your argument, you do not heard ours. If you want to talk globalization of the world economy that is another topic.
I'll start. The life of an american will be based on our freedoms and intlectal rights. You will be better served using our education system to get a skilled job that embraces the global model. Tough times for the lazy and losers.
Well, when the "lazy and losers" make up the majority of America there is obviously a problem. At one point those lazy losers start to degrade society and a big chain effect occurs. They have babies and create even more impoverished lazy losers. So eventually we end up with a society full of lazy losers who don't want to work for a S#%ty salery. Have fun paying them taxes instead.
Btw, global warming will be fixed in 10 years when the climate cools 1 degree and who ever is president is going to get a nice Pat on the back for all of his courageous efforts in stopping global warming and all the sudden it will be fixed and it will be a huge victory for the government.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 07, 2015, 10:33:49 PM
sitty salary? what a concept.
um that makes me laugh a little (cooling 1o) didnt someone say fictitious plans for fictitious problems...um well if it works that fast i thought co2 was near jurassic times yet ice is around. oh yeah. back to the debate.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 08, 2015, 12:38:41 AM
The life of everyone in nearly every first world country is based on their freedom and education. This is not something unique to the United States.
Hell, we're regressing on both fronts. Trump's slogan may be "make America great again", but that's not going to happen until we accept that the "lazy" can still contribute more with cheap/free higher education.
In fact, the fundamental concept behind such arguments is one of the primary benefits we gained from moving away from a hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming society and started forming cities.
Many individuals could produce a sufficient surplus, such that not everyone had to work purely for the existence of the group, and rather could devote their efforts to philosophical, technological, and scientific pursuits, from which humanity derived greater benefit.
This then led to the barter tit for tat system, which itself led to capitalism. Ironic that capitalism grew from socialist societies. But I digress.
Your basic assumption that everyone needs to work hard, and pull their own weight, and make their own way in the world is fundamentally wrong. Such doctrine in fact pisses away what is arguably the greatest benefit of collective human society.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLOOB on October 08, 2015, 01:38:58 AM
What is this thread about?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Dark on October 08, 2015, 02:01:12 AM
My 2¢ . There's a documentary on Netflix call cowanation (think that's the name) very interesting if it is actually true. Haven't looked up stats myself since I just finished it. Basically a boil down. Agricultural is the main factor in global warming (methane), rainforest/land demo (grow feed for said animals, drought (obvious). If the stats he pointed out are even remotely accurate then wow. We as a species are in big trouble. I don't think so much from a environment standpoint but more of what the people will do if resources get critical. Wars will happen and it wont be a pretty one since everyone will be desperate by that point. So all the stops will be pulled out. They may not going full nuclear because they will need the land,water, ect but when people are desperate the people don't think clearly. I don't think anything will happen in our generation (I'm 32) but probably see the start before I die.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 08, 2015, 01:34:44 PM
Just go ahead and read the article before you generalize.
I just want to point out that we have a lot bigger current problems facing our society today than global warming and Social Strife is the #1 problem.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 08, 2015, 02:30:05 PM
Social strife? If you mean dial-a-riot that's just competition for political power.
It's clear from the article that a lot of people have no idea about the reality of the job market, the competition for good people by employers and the competition for unskilled jobs by the unemployed.
If only there was some way to educate them before they enter the work force. :old:
The article you linked portrays adult workers as helpless victims. First guy chooses to stay in the same minimum wage job for 9 years and complains that he isn't paid more. He "figured" he'd get raises. Imagine if he'd asked about that when he got hired. Now he's 44 years old and can cook a hamburger. Raise the minimum wage and he'll likely lose the job. Witness the restaurant closings in Seattle.
Social strife? If you mean dial-a-riot that's just competition for political power.
It's clear from the article that a lot of people have no idea about the reality of the job market, the competition for good people by employers and the competition for unskilled jobs by the unemployed.
If only there was some way to educate them before they enter the work force. :old:
The article you linked portrays adult workers as helpless victims. First guy chooses to stay in the same minimum wage job for 9 years and complains that he isn't paid more. He "figured" he'd get raises. Imagine if he'd asked about that when he got hired. Now he's 44 years old and can cook a hamburger. Raise the minimum wage and he'll likely lose the job. Witness the restaurant closings in Seattle.
Ding Ding! That is very true. There are not very many people at all who have the first clue of what employers are demanding or the salaries they offer. It's all a game to see who they can take advantage of for the longest amount of time. If there wasn't a minimum wage they'd still be working for $2 an hour.
You make it sound like it is easy for chief here to just go out and look for another job. Missing one day of work for this guy takes away food and transportation. If he cant get to work he gets fired, he is forced to live 2 hours away because he cannot afford to live in the town his business operates in. If he takes a risk and skips work to go interview for another job, they turn around and either offer him $.50 more than he is making now, or he doesn't get the job and just wasted a day where now he will really be screwed for a few days because he lost out on the $50 he would have made that day for 8 hours of work. Now imagine this guy has a family with 2 children. They will grow up in poverty and stats say they will most likely become drug dealers, end up in prisons for stealing/drugs, become gangsters, or another impoverished group that will continue to drag America down.
Now, this guy has worked hard for 8 years at this company day in and day out. His managers don't give a S*&T, he got a $.50 raise and a pat on the back. You don't think this trend is starting to become popular for jobs all across America? You tell people to work hard for a higher wage and then reality and the greedy clown CEO comes back and craps on them with a 50 cent raise. Such a glorious society we are turning into, don't you think? I mean, our education is worthless (in the eyes of conservatives), our jobs are worthless, our paychecks are worthless, pretty soon that's going to create a worthless society.
For the record, I do not agree with raising minimum wage to $15 an hour. I think 11.50 is the more reasonable #. If our wages do not increase and we keep treating people like this guy, there is going to be a rude awakening for business owners all across America.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 08, 2015, 04:05:03 PM
What opportunity did his manager have available that was denied to the cook? The article didn't mention one. You just imagine that there is money and opportunity available. Imagine the job training he could have gotten in 9 years of part time community college classes.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Aspen on October 08, 2015, 04:55:04 PM
Most minimum wage jobs don't offer more than 40 hours a week. That leaves 10-20 hours a week to work on gaining knowledge, gaining skills, running a side business, searching better opportunities or generating extra income. Its a poor decision to start a family before you are financially ready. We waited until our 30s and getting to that point was a big motivator.
I would never say its easy, but an able bodied person with average intelligence and some drive can absolutely make it regardless of how jacked up the economy is at the moment.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 08, 2015, 05:23:54 PM
Dude you keep arguing about minimum wage jobs? :bhead At this skill level a 35 and 15 year old both fit qualifications for the job. that is the 15 yo is competing for the same job. in addition the business model most likely revolves around that low pay and expects entry level worker and good turn around. if the business wants better people they will have to pay for it. a complaining 35 yo is just that, chances are hes on his way out! if the labor market was full, more good people would be looking for these jobs, but it is not this way. Good people are in high demand and should not be "stuck" in any job. Limitations in life could force being "stuck", that is why it is so important to be mobile when you can, before kids and a house, so you can maximize your opportunity and worth. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 08, 2015, 05:43:28 PM
Traffic in Beijing this week;
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 08, 2015, 06:19:00 PM
Imagine 7-11 billion people with a car...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 08, 2015, 06:53:55 PM
Here you go boys: http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/ (http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/)
This is the Approved manual.
Awesome! :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 09, 2015, 07:12:54 PM
We will reverse global warming by exposing the garbage computer models predicting the event. Then expose the nutz using it to control populations by exposing the paid liars who agree to be a consensus about the next Eco-Rapture dooming the planet in 85 years.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 09, 2015, 07:39:22 PM
This is good to hear. Now we can start planting trees.
Remember ozone and cfc's? Did not banning those products result in rapid ozone regeneration? I just do not hear about it anymore. :headscratch:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 09, 2015, 11:24:45 PM
The degeneration of ozone has pretty much stopped, levels are still low but predictions is that they will start to increase within a decade or so.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 10, 2015, 07:42:10 PM
So the computer modeling the UN has been basing the end of the world on, which translates into redistribution of moneys from the 1st world have been highly inflated. The end of the world warming by 2100 is 5x-10x over inflated along with CO2's real ability to cause said warming due to "errors" in the computer programs. Which result in over inflating the effect of CO2 and the worldwide temperature on average by 2100.
When the UN championed the global warming computer generated modeling as fact. The 1st world economy was changed to funnel more money and power into the hands of governments and companies who agreed with the modeling. All the while those instigating the change ultimately using the UN's position, based entirely from computer models, as their moral authority when challenged. The UN is not god, nor does the UN have a track record of success about much of anything. Unless it's creating panels and initiatives to fleece the 1st world of it's money by declaring the end of the world over things that never come to pass.
Pollution is a real problem which the USA and EU do a nice job of mitigating locally. Global warming, you need a global army to hold a gun to the heads of all countries to force the massive reduction in CO2 values the garbage computer models describe by 2100. It's also an excellent way to control populations and who they will vote for without having to put a gun to their head. Anyone noticed that countries are not meeting their CO2 emissions goals while one after the other are discovering the will go broke trying?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: BaldEagl on October 11, 2015, 12:02:07 AM
I went to school for a science major (chemistry). Left with a quarter to go (12 credits short) to go to work in a record store. Ended up in a highly compensated executive position in the music industry. Napster came along... poof. Adapt and change. Now I'm in the financial services industry. Along the way I've been a buyer, a salesperson, a marketer, an operations manager, a head of IT and a myriad of other functions. As long as you have initiative you can do whatever you want to, degree or not. At this point I'll probably never get back where I was from an income standpoint and I don't care because I've found a level of comfort where I am and it's good enough for now.
As to global warming my scientific training leads me to believe there's a strong likelihood it's real based on the ever growing consensus of the scientific community. It was the politicians who poo-poo'd the idea for a long time and now even they are coming around. The scientific community has been wrong before. They, like everyone else once thought the world was flat. They've also been right before, creating most of the technological advances known to mankind (and possibly helping to lead us to this point along the way).
While the world wont burn up during my lifetime (and I have no children of my own), if there is a likelihood it's real are we willing to let it go and leave it to the next generation (your kids) when it may be too late? It's interesting observing the balance between greed, responsibility and morality.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 11, 2015, 08:00:59 AM
75 out of 77 hand picked from a pool of around 3400 is a growing consensus of scientists ?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 08:04:32 AM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 11, 2015, 08:13:24 AM
By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer
The myth of the climate change 97%
What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?
Quote
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
To read the rest of their article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 08:30:26 AM
Edit: Better link http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 11, 2015, 09:23:28 AM
Edit: Better link http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
nobody pays anyone to write anti MMGW papers! Their are many noted, "named" scientists that hold a position against MMGW tho
Quote
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17] Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19] Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[20][21][22][23] Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [24][25] Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada government scientist, member of Friends of Science[26][27][28] Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[29][30] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[31][32][33][34] Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[42][43] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[44][45] Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science[46][47][48][49] Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[50] Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[51][52] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[53][54] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [55][56] Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[57][58] Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[59][60] Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[61] These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[62][63] Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[64][65][66] Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[67][68][69] Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[70][71] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[72][73] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[74][75] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[76][77] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[78][79] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[80][81] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[82][83] Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[84][85] Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[86][87] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[88][89] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[90][91] Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[92][93] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[94][95] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[96][97][98] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[99][100] Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[101][102] Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[103][104] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[105][106][107] Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[108][109] Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[110][111] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[112][113][114][115] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[116][117] Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[118][119] Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[120][121] George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[122][123] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[124][125] Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[126][127] Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[128][129] Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[130][131] Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[132][133] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[134][135][136] Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[137][138] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[139][140] Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[141][142] Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[143][144] Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[145][146] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148] Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [149][150] Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[151][152] Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[153][154]
PS-- a consensus does not have any effect on science! (http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-10/1595D8F6-3C16-4146-949F-3692DCF8BA1B_zpsrl1jfv6z.png) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-10/1595D8F6-3C16-4146-949F-3692DCF8BA1B_zpsrl1jfv6z.png.html)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 09:28:35 AM
I have never said their isnt. I know it is, many of them paid by the oil industry but i guess its irrelevant.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 09:38:47 AM
First you were impying that there is no concesus and when I show you that there is, then concesus means nothing. You are also assuming that all scientist but those who are against MMGW are bought and have an agenda to hide the truth from the people. But that argument can as easily be used the other way around..
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 11, 2015, 10:29:45 AM
First you were impying that there is no concesus and when I show you that there is, then concesus means nothing. You are also assuming that all scientist but those who are against MMGW are bought and have an agenda to hide the truth from the people. But that argument can as easily be used the other way around..
first off,, scientific method doesn't include "a consensus" Secondly,, I've posted names you've posted numbers, Third,, if their was an Einstien of climate science,, he would be on every network 24/7 , or maybe not,, since Einstien would tell you nothing can be measured with absolute accuracy without all relavent factors. Do you know all relavent factors to the climate of the earth? If so please list your findings.
Or Believe what you want, 98% of the population ,( including scientists) once thought the world was flat, how'd that work out?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 11, 2015, 10:46:49 AM
I thought scientific method did depend on consensus. Until proven wrong it is s theory. A theory is not a law. Causation requires the use of Koch's postulates. :bolt:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: pembquist on October 11, 2015, 11:01:02 AM
Its true, "the scientific method" does not depend on consensus, however political policy decisions do. I would say that what gets everybody excited is the prospect of government policy that they dislike.
You are correct that a theory is not a law, however the common use of phrases such as "its just a theory" used with regard to scientific theory illustrate that the meaning of theory as used in science is not understood by a great number of people.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 11:16:57 AM
In science a Theory is as close as you can get. It requiers a lot before a hypothesis is upgraded to a theory. A hypothesis is strenghen if several studies or experiments can confirm the original findings.
Climate research is a complex subject and its hard to predict the future. The consencus is that human activites do have an impact on the climate. The question is how much and what are the consequenses. The debate is pretty much between those who want to hope for the best and those who wants to plan for the worst.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 11:26:37 AM
What science requires is verifiable data that isn't changed or ignored to fit theories. Consensus would have us living in caves afraid of fire.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 11:41:41 AM
Agree.
IMO the problem is that when the subject reaches outside the scientific world there are a lot of personal opinions added, so the debate is rarley about what we really know.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 11:45:54 AM
When I was young it only took a few years to know everything.
I'd rather not say how long it took to learn what I don't know. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
True. We now know so much that we know that we might not be more than a hologram.
Key problem with the climate is that it is not sure that we have the time to figure out how it really is. That mean that we might need to make decisions on what we assume would happen and then it becomes a bit more tricky.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 11, 2015, 12:27:38 PM
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
Yea. Its called a "nuclear winter"
The globe has been cooling, and warming, and cooling and warming for as long as its been in existence and on average around every 10,000 years or so. If you look at a certain famous persons hoaky stick graph. You will see we are pretty much right on schedule.
Man.. or "Human kind" to be PC has been forced to up and move due to weather and climate changes for as long as we have been guests on this blue/green orb. Thee is no reason whatsoever to think that outside of a worldwide cataclysmic event such as an asteroid strike or the sun exploding these patterns wont continue indefinitely.
Ok so maybe the earth is warming. So what. Its been warmer before as is indicated by the fossils in the rock being found under where the ice is.
It isnt global warming we fear or cooling either for that matter. Its change. Fear of the unknown. The different. Ok. So maybe it will sop raining in some areas. It also means it will probably rain more in others. "The seas will rise" Oh my goodness. like thats never happened before!
Fear not little ones. Everything will be fine in spite of what the chicken little alarmists would have you believe Yanno whats going to happen? Human kind will do what we have always done what we have proved time and time again to be superior at with much much less technology available as we have now. We will adapt and find new ways to exploit whatever happens. And this is already beginning to take place as as new shipping routes are being opened.
Instead of worrying about how to stop or reverse the inevitable. Think on how to take advantage of it. You'll sleep better at night if you look at it not so much as a threat. But as a new opportunity
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 11, 2015, 01:03:41 PM
The globe has been cooling, and warming, and cooling and warming for as long as its been in existence and on average around every 10,000 years or so. If you look at a certain famous persons hoaky stick graph. You will see we are pretty much right on schedule.
Man.. or "Human kind" to be PC has been forced to up and move due to weather and climate changes for as long as we have been guests on this blue/green orb. Thee is no reason whatsoever to think that outside of a worldwide cataclysmic event such as an asteroid strike or the sun exploding these patterns wont continue indefinitely.
Yeah, but 10,000 years on a geological scale is nothing. If you're actually proposing that that cycle grinding to a halt in the space of 200 years (and I'm not saying it has or necessarily will) is just to expected at some point, you're an idiot. That's not how things work.
Quote
Ok so maybe the earth is warming. So what. Its been warmer before as is indicated by the fossils in the rock being found under where the ice is.
That's not why there's fossils in polar and subpolar regions. It's called plate tectonics, dummy. The surface is floating around on an ocean of molten rock, and slides around.
A ten million years ago, the continents weren't anywhere near where they are now. Same goes for ten million years before that, and before that, ad infinitum. Well, at least back until the crust solidified, and tectonics began.
But point is that the temperature had damn all to do with fossil formation.
Quote
It isnt global warming we fear or cooling either for that matter. Its change. Fear of the unknown. The different. Ok. So maybe it will sop raining in some areas. It also means it will probably rain more in others. "The seas will rise" Oh my goodness. like thats never happened before!
Okay, then I'm officially putting you in charge of the problem. Your job is now to make sure we have enough food at an affordable cost. Also you can't turn away refugees, since you'll probably say it's up to them to take care of themselves, which would include moving out of a barren desert.
Also, you're officially in charge of relocating everyone on the coast inland. Specifically, you're required to salvage 75% of everything, so we don't leave tens of trillions worth of progress at the bottom of our newly expanded coastal shelf.
Quote
Fear not little ones. Everything will be fine in spite of what the chicken little alarmists would have you believe Yanno whats going to happen? Human kind will do what we have always done what we have proved time and time again to be superior at with much much less technology available as we have now. We will adapt and find new ways to exploit whatever happens. And this is already beginning to take place as as new shipping routes are being opened.
Instead of worrying about how to stop or reverse the inevitable. Think on how to take advantage of it. You'll sleep better at night if you look at it not so much as a threat. But as a new opportunity
Yeah, adapt, exploit, take advantage of. Excellent verbiage for dealing with crisis. I'm sure some love muffin can find a way to profit off of NYC being flooded out and Africa becoming a desert. Because that's all that matters. Exploitation of misfortune to improve your own life.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 01:48:21 PM
Just imagine if Africa became like the Sahara desert. Over a 1000 year period. And everybody waited to move. While the rest of the world changed as little as it has in the last 1000 years.
You can change 1000 to 500 if you prefer that model.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 01:58:09 PM
If the change takes several hundred years it is no problem, people will adapt, if it takes 10-20 years its a different matter. Many of those effected are also very poor and they don't have the resources to adapt. They can move but they might not be welcome in the new area. (especially if that is in the West...)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 02:03:35 PM
Good thing the temp has been flat the last 18 years. :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 02:17:10 PM
I would not say flat but... (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/images/decadaltemp/annual_temperature_anomalies_2014.png)
To see any trends you need to look over a longer periods of time.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 02:23:06 PM
Good idea. That gives you a wide range of choices. :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 11, 2015, 04:00:33 PM
Yes and no. If you concidered all other factors like global economic development, need for energy etc. the choice is quite simple. But its a different story...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: BaldEagl on October 11, 2015, 04:24:02 PM
I say lets leave it up to HT. He's got a young family and supposedly always has the data we don't. I'm sure he can squeeze in global warning while working on the new graphics engine.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2015, 05:53:09 PM
Yes and no. If you concidered all other factors like global economic development, need for energy etc. the choice is quite simple. But its a different story...
One factor I'd like to consider is your baseline that tells you the temp graph is abnormal.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 11, 2015, 10:23:16 PM
Yeah, but 10,000 years on a geological scale is nothing. If you're actually proposing that that cycle grinding to a halt in the space of 200 years (and I'm not saying it has or necessarily will) is just to expected at some point, you're an idiot. That's not how things work.
That's not why there's fossils in polar and subpolar regions. It's called plate tectonics, dummy. The surface is floating around on an ocean of molten rock, and slides around.
A ten million years ago, the continents weren't anywhere near where they are now. Same goes for ten million years before that, and before that, ad infinitum. Well, at least back until the crust solidified, and tectonics began.
But point is that the temperature had damn all to do with fossil formation.
Okay, then I'm officially putting you in charge of the problem. Your job is now to make sure we have enough food at an affordable cost. Also you can't turn away refugees, since you'll probably say it's up to them to take care of themselves, which would include moving out of a barren desert.
Also, you're officially in charge of relocating everyone on the coast inland. Specifically, you're required to salvage 75% of everything, so we don't leave tens of trillions worth of progress at the bottom of our newly expanded coastal shelf.
Yeah, adapt, exploit, take advantage of. Excellent verbiage for dealing with crisis. I'm sure some love muffin can find a way to profit off of NYC being flooded out and Africa becoming a desert. Because that's all that matters. Exploitation of misfortune to improve your own life.
Suggest you go back to schooling. Plate tectonics or not. the polar regions havent always been frozen over. There have been both warming and cooling periods throughout earths history. Some taking place rather quickly. Just look at our own very recent midevil warm period and mini ice age (which we just came out of) Both of which people adapted and relocated if they needed to.
I wont need to be in charge of moving everyone. You think people are going to wake up one morning with the ocean outside their front door? Based on your overall response it is painfully obvious that you watch entirely too much Hollywood.
There are solutions to all the problems you mention. And just as soon as it becomes profitable to implement them. They will be done. Mark my words. We have the technology available already so that Africa doesnt need to be a desert. There is currently no profit in it so its not being done
Climate Change. The only consistent thing this planet has ever done is change. You alluded as much yourself. We either adapt and exploit those changes as we have always done. Or we cease being guests on this planet just like over 90% of all the species that have ever existed have.
Adapt and exploit. That is the absolute best and only RL option because one thing is for sure. Even if what you are having panic attacks over are true. We arent going to change the climate. Even if it were possible (and I dont believe it is) If you have any sense of realism about you at all. You can only conclude that in the real world, you arent going to get the world entire to agree to co operate to make the needed changes. So that leads us right back to the only realistic option. Adapt and exploit. And we are already starting to do exactly that
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 11, 2015, 10:24:42 PM
Yes and no. If you concidered all other factors like global economic development, need for energy etc. the choice is quite simple. But its a different story...
and now your educated. you need to convince the rest of the world to live in dung soaked streets and blissful visions of fruitless labor.
a better scientist would work for a solution.
this is happening but not there yet.
keep up your good work, we need it.
thank you for your consideration. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 12, 2015, 02:01:09 AM
Suggest you go back to schooling. Plate tectonics or not. the polar regions havent always been frozen over. There have been both warming and cooling periods throughout earths history. Some taking place rather quickly. Just look at our own very recent midevil warm period and mini ice age (which we just came out of) Both of which people adapted and relocated if they needed to.
I wont need to be in charge of moving everyone. You think people are going to wake up one morning with the ocean outside their front door? Based on your overall response it is painfully obvious that you watch entirely too much Hollywood.
There are solutions to all the problems you mention. And just as soon as it becomes profitable to implement them. They will be done. Mark my words. We have the technology available already so that Africa doesnt need to be a desert. There is currently no profit in it so its not being done
Climate Change. The only consistent thing this planet has ever done is change. You alluded as much yourself. We either adapt and exploit those changes as we have always done. Or we cease being guests on this planet just like over 90% of all the species that have ever existed have.
Adapt and exploit. That is the absolute best and only RL option because one thing is for sure. Even if what you are having panic attacks over are true. We arent going to change the climate. Even if it were possible (and I dont believe it is) If you have any sense of realism about you at all. You can only conclude that in the real world, you arent going to get the world entire to agree to co operate to make the needed changes. So that leads us right back to the only realistic option. Adapt and exploit. And we are already starting to do exactly that
I'm well aware of the global temperature cycle. But that still has very much less to do with fossils, than does Siberia being a tropical (in its geographical location) low land a while back.
And you seem to have no concept of what it would actually take to move a city, even on the scale of decades. We're already having issues with affordability of housing, now imagine people start flocking away from the coast instead of too it.
Hell, I'm sure it will provide a big boon to housing and property moguls, perhaps for construction workers as well. But at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism doesn't work when demand for a product is born of necessity, rather than simple want. It's the great flaw in your vaunted system. It always has been.
Besides, we're advancing beyond material want. We're at the point where profitability should no longer be the driving factor.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 12, 2015, 07:01:35 AM
Besides, we're advancing beyond material want. We're at the point where profitability should no longer be the driving factor.
Good luck with that. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 12, 2015, 09:34:55 AM
This asteroid (2015 TC25) was detected yesterday only. I'm sure are lots more larger undetected; it's small 5 meters diameter and tomorrow is going to get to 0.3 LD( lunar distance) from Earth, orbit condition code 6, uncertain, ;, Maybe hits the Earth and wastes years of carbon taxes; :noid
http://spaceweather.com/
the orbit parameters, requires java; http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2015%20TC25;orb=1;old=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=1#cad
http://neo.ssa.esa.int/web/guest/orbit-visualizer
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on October 12, 2015, 11:22:39 AM
Besides, we're advancing beyond material want. We're at the point where profitability should no longer be the driving factor.
And now the true motivation behind the warmist movement comes out, an anti-industrial socialist agenda. Thank you for showing what its really all about.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FBKampfer on October 12, 2015, 12:02:57 PM
And now the true motivation behind the warmist movement comes out, an anti-industrial socialist agenda. Thank you for showing what its really all about.
They're separate issues. What do you think will happen when AI is created? All human labor will be obsolete.
The day AI is created is the day capitalism comes crashing down, as the "market value" of labor is kicked out from under it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Skyyr on October 12, 2015, 12:13:04 PM
They're separate issues. What do you think will happen when AI is created? All human labor will be obsolete.
The day AI is created is the day capitalism comes crashing down, as the "market value" of labor is kicked out from under it.
The "day AI is created." Ah, yes, the infallible, non-existent, yet somehow inevitable "AI." The "AI" that requires humans for its creation, yet will surpass them once created and replace their work entirely. The first and final coming of the great "AI."
Ummm... yeah... I though religious discussions weren't allowed here?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 12, 2015, 01:43:46 PM
I think the automated fast food robots that can pop out your fast food order in a few minutes are a bigger threat than AI. Where in the US at least will teenagers get their first work experience after all the $15hr 30 something burger flippers are replaced by Robby the robotic burger flippers? Social justice sure is expensive for those it's supposed to help. Unintended consequence's be damnd, it will just take more money fleeced from the few people who still work for a living to make it work some day. I guess that's one way to advance some of us past material want, wealth redistribution at gunpoint. Oops, by IRS coercion.
In all of Roddenberry's writings he never wrote the story of how Earth went from a work for monetary sustenance reward society to everyone getting everything visa replicators. Always wondered in the few movies that showed earth and the civilian apartments the officers lived in, how did they pay for such obvious elite upscale dwellings. Or was there some magic all pigs are equal but, we accept some are more equal and so naturally deserve more than the rest of us. Or the first new Star Trek movie and Kirk's stepdad owning that vintage Corvett...
We are going to end up with AI because no one will be able to afford to eat McDonalds other wise. Including those poor social justice recipients and college grads in Seattle who were supposed to get an enhanced quality of living because the evil capitalists were forced at gun point to raise wages or else. And all those jobs Americans won't do. Japanese won't either, so their robotics industry is inventing machines that will, better than humans ever did. Including that old illegal alien BS story about picking strawberry's. There is a very good $50,000 strawberry picking robot now. Wonder if the current white house has been keeping those out of the country so far as a form of protectionism.
Japan is pioneering automated hot meal robotics that can create meals with an equal taste, visual and texture profile to those created by humans. They are showing up everywhere in Tokyo. Swipe your money card, pick your meal, minutes later, a hot cooked meal your momma would envy. They used biometric and biochemical profiles to make sure at the enzymatic level the meals have the same taste profiles as human cooked meals. And no chance someone will spit in your order and give you hepatitis or worse........
And, and, they are making advancements in home robotics and exoskeletons for the elderly to continue taking care of themselves. Seems generational filial piety is on the same wane in Japan as it is in the West.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 02:13:07 PM
Would probably be nice but not very realistic. Imo it is about replacing old technology with new one. Electric cars for example, If we fix the energy storage problem they are far better than a car with combustion engine. It isn't about move back to the caves, it is about do what we do in a smarter way. Carbonhydrates as the main energy source is a dead end, its irrelevant if it takes 30 or 80 years, we will face the end of that era sooner or later. Most likely within this century. My standpoint is that since we know it there is no point to wait, its better to start the transition to other energy sources now and use the time to get a smooth transition.
As I said earlier, another issue is that economic development means more need for energy and that is equal to more need for oil. By 2050 demand for oil will increase with 300-1000% if the poor countries develop in the same pace as they do now. If the demand is bigger than the production capacity it will have a huge negative impact on the economy.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 12, 2015, 02:26:19 PM
Efficiency has always come from the competitive free market. Free markets decrease poverty. The standard of living in the world, bad as it is in places, is the highest it's ever been. In the US kids are so spoiled they have to make up new stuff to be upset about.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 02:32:04 PM
I have not said anything about not having a free market. But if we ends up in a situation were the supply of natural resources not can meet the demand the economy can no longer grow. It also increase the risk of conflicts over natural resources. A free market isnt dependent on a specific energy source.
Edit: we can also add the pollution problem, several major cities have so polluted air that it is harmful to humans and we need to find a way to deal with that too.
Edit2: A report from BP, they estimate the present reserves to last for 52,5 years... http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/oil-review-by-energy-type/oil-reserves.html
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 12, 2015, 03:28:02 PM
Free markets are great until the rest of the lower valued markets start undercutting you and stealing your workforce/production, there by destroying the working foundation in your own country whose standards and practices are much higher than others.
I agree with Trump that we need a "Fair market" in this country to battle places like China and Indonesia stealing our production and workforce for a so called "free market".
If you want to start seeing better fundamental changes in the U.S start with that.
In this world, everything comes down to the $ sign. There are plenty of better energy sources out there, one being Magnetic Motors, but if it cost too much to build for a nonprofitable reward, there is no sense in building it.
The problem is that our gas and Oil is run on the stock market so therefore you divide a country buy killing Oil (which hurts a lot of people's pockets), When you kill OIL the whole market follows and so everyone loses. This is a game by the government to keep oil valuable.
Eventually it will fizzle out like how old technology becomes obsolete, but expect that to have a drastic impact on the markets along with a lot of pissed off people who lose on their investments. It will take the world time and money to transition and that is something a lot of people fear.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 12, 2015, 03:31:06 PM
Only BP has made the 53.3 year assessment after creating a spill in the Gulf of Mexico which they are kissing huge booty to get their brownie points back, and not loose any more money.
Here is the disclaimer from their study:
The data series for proved oil reserves in this year’s Review does not necessarily meet the definitions, guidelines and practices used for determining proved reserves at company level, for instance as published by the US Securities and Exchange Commission nor does it necessarily represent BP's view of proved reserves by country. Rather the data series has been compiled using a combination of primary official sources and third-party data.
A corporation only includes language like this to avoid being sued later for fraud. ---------------------------------
US producers at this time are effectively being strangled from developing the US shale reserves by a president who will never get any of the loans back from all the failed clean energy companies that had Obama bucks thrown at them. And the US shale reserves were not included in BP's calculations. Lets see, only 50 years remaining for oil, the world is growing too fast, so a new sooner disaster is looming than global warming by 2100. Especially with the constant stream of problems being found in the computer modeling. Sounds more like global warming is loosing it's power over the masses and a new disaster is needed to keep the money and power acquisition coming in for someone.
Conservative estimates on the US shale reserves is 200 years along with being able to export oil in competition with OPEC. Israel may have just found a reserve bigger than the Saudi fields.
At the same time 1st world auto and aviation manufacturers are killing themselves to create more efficient and less polluting engines every time you turn around.
And all governments who attend the UN knows about China's new cities with coal smog blocking out the sky including not being able to see between skyscrapers in some cases. It is the worst that the world has ever seen, and no American city was ever this bad.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 03:35:09 PM
Other sources say the same thing, most of them are even more pessimistic.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 12, 2015, 03:46:25 PM
People worried about automation should consider that, historically, automation has drastically increased global GDP and standard of living. Yes, some people are put out of work by an automation advance. But -- lots more people make more money and are put into work by it.
For example, almost no one would argue that the Industrial Revolution didn't create vastly more jobs and wealth than it destroyed.
Consider automation in the textile industry (power looms, etc.). It put some weavers out of work (the Luddites), but it greatly boosted the textile industry so that it soon employed 100's of thousands of new workers, drove down the cost of textiles so that more people could afford them, and created opportunities in other industries thereby.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 12, 2015, 03:56:38 PM
Free markets are great until the rest of the lower valued markets start undercutting you and stealing your workforce/production, there by destroying the working foundation in your own country whose standards and practices are much higher than others.
You're suggesting limiting competition. That stifles innovation and efficiency and causes higher prices that hurt poor people.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 04:09:45 PM
People worried about automation should consider that, historically, automation has drastically increased global GDP and standard of living. Yes, some people are put out of work by an automation advance. But -- lots more people make more money and are put into work by it.
For example, almost no one would argue that the Industrial Revolution didn't create vastly more jobs and wealth than it destroyed.
Consider automation in the textile industry (power looms, etc.). It put some weavers out of work (the Luddites), but it greatly boosted the textile industry so that it soon employed 100's of thousands of new workers, drove down the cost of textiles so that more people could afford them, and created opportunities in other industries thereby.
That's great and all, until all those jobs get shipped over to South Asia and don't really benefit Americans like they should, meanwhile the global markets undercut us and bring our nation down as a whole. It's great to provide for more jobs and more businsess to people but it doesn't do a a whole lot when those jobs and production materials leave America, sure we are left with cheap products, but we are also left with a cheap society. I don't see that being a good thing when our society wasn't built on being cheap.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 12, 2015, 05:18:44 PM
That's great and all, until all those jobs get shipped over to South Asia and don't really benefit Americans like they should, meanwhile the global markets undercut us and bring our nation down as a whole. It's great to provide for more jobs and more businsess to people but it doesn't do a a whole lot when those jobs and production materials leave America, sure we are left with cheap products, but we are also left with a cheap society. I don't see that being a good thing when our society wasn't built on being cheap.
You still haven't read Basic Economics, by Sowell.
You have talked before about the importance of investment in education. But if you are not willing to read even one book to go from knowing almost nothing about a vital topic (how economies work) to knowing a lot, it turns out you don't value education much after all.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 12, 2015, 05:32:31 PM
So far for the end of the industrial revolution and our current point in the technology revolution, many of the 1st world industrialized nations are turning into welfare states with no real end in sight to the growing numbers on their roles. I see no vision by any of these countries about where this is supposed to end up. Or what is next to insure people can still be productive and earn the funds to pay for the products companies need purchased to keep the whole Catch-22 circle moving. Unless governments look at welfare now like IT hardware companies during the DotCom boom who gave their customers loans to buy their products. We know how that worked out.
You see fewer productive citizens paying more taxes as a consequence of modernization. Though in Scandinavian countries and the British isles, they have enjoyed a short hiatus due to their sea oil profits which will not last much longer. But, did make it possible to have very generous state welfare benefits. Wonder what happens to those countries when the sea oil runs out?
With robotics supplanting and manual labor factory jobs moving out of the 1st world western nations, how do you survive as service dominated nations? Service produces nothing and can be replaced by computer programs and robots like Japan is pushing the envelope with. The governments cannot continue to punish the dwindling supply of taxpayers with nothing to replace tax revenue sources or factory jobs to get citizens off the welfare roles. A good example is American Social Security where originally you had about 60 employed factory workers paying in to every one retired using those benefits. Today, maybe two employed workers paying in to every person receiving benefits.
It's also a canard to say people just have to get an education and make themselves competitive. What do you do with everyone else who has an education but didn't make the cut, and all those who just don't have it much past a High School education? It's a fallacy to keep saying they have to get educated in countries that mandate education by law until 12th grade. You have a very effective process to level out your population and in the end, it comes out the same every time.
80% needing factory or manual jobs with 20% highly competitive and or creating companies. Many of those new companies in the 1st world because the 20% creating them are not economically suicidal, are aimed at utilizing other 20%ers for their brains, not their manual dexterity. If manual production is needed, it's outsourced to China, India, Asia, South America or Mexico. Who in the west can afford to purchase their own goods if they are produced in the west without some government subsidy at some point in the process?
Technology really makes us redundant and less efficient to the bottom line of any company trying to compete globally and fulfill it's obligation to shareholders. The welfare state and how it is exacerbated or gotten past will define how the 1st world nations of this planet move forward. China and India are both happy to let 1b of their population rot in the country side scratching out a living from the soil. The west doesn't have that option due to how we have divorced our cultures from the land post WW2 for technology and modernism.
I don't see lines of recent college graduates begging to work the fields here in the U.S. so they can get back on the farm. While in Seattle all the kids with masters and doctorate degrees are being fired from their burger flipping and barista jobs over the new $15hr minimum wage. And in Japan, fishing and farming industries are disappearing because everyone wants to be one of the 20% and live in Tokyo or other Japanese big cities.
So global warming nor oil availability is our real looming problem. The next big problem will be ourselves and how we are divorced from the outcomes technology has made available over night to those who don't want to think about us as the 7billion pound and getting fatter gorilla in the room. The industrial revolution was fast but, still at a manageable speed for the human condition.
I Guess we should all start scratching dirt.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zoney on October 12, 2015, 05:40:48 PM
After 25 pages of educated opinions, I would like to suggest that for many of the posters here, the best way to improve our future is for you not to have children.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 12, 2015, 05:56:16 PM
So far for the end of the industrial revolution and our current point in the technology revolution, many of the 1st world industrialized nations are turning into welfare states with no real end in sight to the growing numbers on their roles. I see no vision by any of these countries about where this is supposed to end up. Or what is next to insure people can still be productive and earn the funds to pay for the products companies need purchased to keep the whole Catch-22 circle moving. Unless governments look at welfare now like IT hardware companies during the DotCom boom who gave their customers loans to buy their products. We know how that worked out.
You see fewer productive citizens paying more taxes as a consequence of modernization. Though in Scandinavian countries and the British isles, they have enjoyed a short hiatus due to their sea oil profits which will not last much longer. But, did make it possible to have very generous state welfare benefits. Wonder what happens to those countries when the sea oil runs out?
With robotics supplanting and manual labor factory jobs moving out of the 1st world western nations, how do you survive as service dominated nations? Service produces nothing and can be replaced by computer programs and robots like Japan is pushing the envelope with. The governments cannot continue to punish the dwindling supply of taxpayers with nothing to replace tax revenue sources or factory jobs to get citizens off the welfare roles. A good example is American Social Security where originally you had about 60 employed factory workers paying in to every one retired using those benefits. Today, maybe two employed workers paying in to every person receiving benefits.
It's also a canard to say people just have to get an education and make themselves competitive. What do you do with everyone else who has an education but didn't make the cut, and all those who just don't have it much past a High School education? It's a fallacy to keep saying they have to get educated in countries that mandate education by law until 12th grade. You have a very effective process to level out your population and in the end, it comes out the same every time.
80% needing factory or manual jobs with 20% highly competitive and or creating companies. Many of those new companies in the 1st world because the 20% creating them are not economically suicidal, are aimed at utilizing other 20%ers for their brains, not their manual dexterity. If manual production is needed, it's outsourced to China, India, Asia, South America or Mexico. Who in the west can afford to purchase their own goods if they are produced in the west without some government subsidy at some point in the process?
Technology really makes us redundant and less efficient to the bottom line of any company trying to compete globally and fulfill it's obligation to shareholders. The welfare state and how it is exacerbated or gotten past will define how the 1st world nations of this planet move forward. China and India are both happy to let 1b of their population rot in the country side scratching out a living from the soil. The west doesn't have that option due to how we have divorced our cultures from the land post WW2 for technology and modernism.
I don't see lines of recent college graduates begging to work the fields here in the U.S. so they can get back on the farm. While in Seattle all the kids with masters and doctorate degrees are being fired from their burger flipping and barista jobs over the new $15hr minimum wage. And in Japan, fishing and farming industries are disappearing because everyone wants to be one of the 20% and live in Tokyo or other Japanese big cities.
So global warming nor oil availability is our real looming problem. The next big problem will be ourselves and how we are divorced from the outcomes technology has made available over night to those who don't want to think about us as the 7billion pound and getting fatter gorilla in the room. The industrial revolution was fast but, still at a manageable speed for the human condition.
I Guess we should all start scratching dirt.
Wow, I actually agree with you there for the most part!
It's going to have to transition at some point. One of the biggest reasons why I like Trump is because he understandds that our free trade system is being highly taken advantage of by many developing and developed nations who have undervalued currency and terrible business standards that we cannot compete with, thus making our own people less well off or weak as a nation. I hope to see some sort of policy that helps America become more competitive within itself rather than with the entire undervalued world.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 06:22:57 PM
Just FYI Bustr: Only Norway have a large oil production among the Scandinavian countries.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 12, 2015, 07:53:07 PM
You tell em buster! :salute
I will be hiring 2 more workers next year. Like most years the good ones have a good work ethic. Most good ones are retired. The young ones move on to good things but those kids are rare. When I do find them I ask if they have any sibling looking for work because for some strange reason good workers are made at home. :airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 12, 2015, 08:43:01 PM
Whenever this subject comes up we can only digress to common sense and reality in the form of humor
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 12, 2015, 09:31:44 PM
can i get a link to that? my computer will not auto play.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 12, 2015, 09:41:42 PM
As long as the world divides itself ideologically with a boogyman that lives in the year 2100 or 2066, our out of sync relationship with the Technology revolution will not become the center piece topic that all peoples of this planet need to recognize. Our own human nature combined with Technology is the real boogyman. We have become accustomed to Technology making everything disposable, removing any sense of responsibility for the outcome once the figurative trash we toss leaves our hand. With one hand we need humans to purchase our products to keep the world rotating. With the other hand we toss humans in the trash as quickly as possible to increase competiveness with Technology. Eventually the trash bin gets a name, The Welfare State.
The USA has 94 Million citizens who have stopped looking for work since the current occupant of the white house was given a Noble Prize for doing nothing. The EU by an official measure from Wiki has about 30 Million in that category. I suspect with the EU at a population of 500 Million opposed to the USA at 320 Million, the number who have given up looking is much higher than 30 Million.
All of those people will be forgotten because companies have had nearly a decade of doing more with less people and thriving due to technological invention and evolution. So to keep costs down when the west's economy's start picking up again, technology will be cheaper and more efficient than people to compete. The forgotten 200 Million or so will be that, and those country's will find it simpler to keep them on the welfare rolls and focus on their children and the emerging generation from the school systems. Onward marches the welfare state a victim of it's own success. Once economy's begin to recover, it will take upwards of a decade to see any real movement towards employment from the forgotten. Maybe this is what happens when you don't instead have a world war every 20 or so years.
Aside from the world wide aging of the baby boomers, during that decade for employment to gain traction with the forgotten, another wave of Gen-Xers will be getting into their 40's and 50's. Our Technological revolution has shown itself to be a boon to companies in that they can be done with older fixed assets who cost more in salaries and health care. BofA was an industry pioneer in eliminating it's older employees over night without incurring class action Ageism lawsuits.
We have become disposable due to the Technological revolution. And human nature is to chase the hoard of bunny's out of your own garden and not worry what happens to the bunny's or other peoples gardens. Welcome to the welfare state of disposable humans landfill at the bottom of the Technological wishing well. Anyone ever wonder how all those out of work camel jockeys feel in the Oil rich Muslim countries where 2% of the population receives the benefits of Oil profits while everyone else scratches dirt and buggers goats?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 12, 2015, 10:00:13 PM
Another good read buster :aok although I must say, dirt is a four letter word. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 12, 2015, 10:10:12 PM
Free markets are great until the rest of the lower valued markets start undercutting you and stealing your workforce/production, there by destroying the working foundation in your own country whose standards and practices are much higher than others.
I agree with Trump that we need a "Fair market" in this country to battle places like China and Indonesia stealing our production and workforce for a so called "free market".
Lower prices benefit everybody. Trade restrictions don't. It makes no difference if the company undercutting your prices is in another country or down the street.
Please don't suggest that any sound bite by a politician running for office actually makes sense. They only sound good when you don't know the issues.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 12, 2015, 10:58:15 PM
No one complained about free market when US produced food aided by tax money were shipped to Africa, flooded the markets and left the local farmers out of business.
Protectionism will not save you or your jobs, you must find a way to stay competitive . Just like everybody else.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 07:38:44 AM
Lower prices benefit everybody. Trade restrictions don't. It makes no difference if the company undercutting your prices is in another country or down the street.
Please don't suggest that any sound bite by a politician running for office actually makes sense. They only sound good when you don't know the issues.
It makes a HUGE difference!
If I have to compete with Jim down the road on producing widgets, we will be both competing in the same economy and representing the same econimic zone structure. The US has a similar econimic zone throughout the country. Businses that work in that zone benefit the growth and sustainability in that zone. NOW, all of the sudden a new economic zone opens up that is 1/3 of your valued zone. Immediatly businsses start transitioning into a different econimic zone that does not bring the same economic cushion it once brought. The higher valued zone looks stable because they still make sales, but on the inside it starts becoming weak as the jobs run out and the wages begin to be undervalued, goods become incredibly cheap, and people don't realize that their goods are becoming less and less valuable everyday. This is not good for the higher valued economic zone that depends on itself to remain sustainable an prosperable.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 07:42:12 AM
No one complained about free market when US produced food aided by tax money were shipped to Africa, flooded the markets and left the local farmers out of business.
Protectionism will not save you or your jobs, you must find a way to stay competitive . Just like everybody else.
We came in and undercut their production and prices big time, its no different than what Walmart does to retail small businesses when it opens up in a new area.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 13, 2015, 09:19:42 AM
If I have to compete with Jim down the road on producing widgets, we will be both competing in the same economy and representing the same econimic zone structure. The US has a similar econimic zone throughout the country. Businses that work in that zone benefit the growth and sustainability in that zone. NOW, all of the sudden a new economic zone opens up that is 1/3 of your valued zone. Immediatly businsses start transitioning into a different econimic zone that does not bring the same economic cushion it once brought. The higher valued zone looks stable because they still make sales, but on the inside it starts becoming weak as the jobs run out and the wages begin to be undervalued, goods become incredibly cheap, and people don't realize that their goods are becoming less and less valuable everyday. This is not good for the higher valued economic zone that depends on itself to remain sustainable an prosperable.
I'm sorry but that's nonsense.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on October 13, 2015, 09:44:09 AM
Speaking of Einstein! Meet Dr. Freeman Dyson
Quote
The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”
So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.
In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.
It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation.
It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.
Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).
Draw out a graph and look at it yourself. If you think Businsess Owners who don't give back to the zone economy by providing jobs or livable wages is doing anything to benefit the zone economy than you have the wrong idea. The ONLY thing it benefits is the business owner, which is great for them, but eventually you can only cut margins and expenses so much while your revenue ends up stagnating because people don't have the money to spend on your goods. Once this happens on a large enough scale, it starts to make a damaging impact to the health of the economy.
If you can't see the flow of goods and flow of cash through the market declining, than you are obviously arrogant and need to read some news articles based in the year 2015, because your idea of a Chineaee trade free market is killing this country.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 13, 2015, 10:17:30 AM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 10:36:27 AM
Here is one study you can read comparing our opportunity in America from 1970-2014, and gives examples of how our job market is vastly different today than it was before.
This is a study not an article. http://opportunitynation.org/app/uploads/2014/06/Opportunity-Nation-2014-Historical-Report1.pdf
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 13, 2015, 10:58:09 AM
Yup, its going to be a tough road. All we have is freedom, intellectual rights, and the dollar. Don't screw it up. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 13, 2015, 11:21:24 AM
you are obviously arrogant and need to read some news articles based in the year 2015, because your idea of a Chineaee trade free market is killing this country.
When you only have insults it's a clear sign that you don't have a valid argument, just a second hand belief you can't justify with facts.
Good luck finding an economically literate news story. :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 11:46:55 AM
When you only have insults it's a clear sign that you don't have a valid argument, just a second hand belief you can't justify with facts.
Good luck finding an economically literate news story. :D
Ohh, I see, you can insult me by saying my statements are nonsense but don't expect to get slapped back?? Cmon now.
Ohh, and I posted a valid study from 2014.
Your argument is based on life between 1960 and 1990. Our economy has drastically changed since then, and you'd know that if you payed attention to studies that are actually relevant instead of basing your argument on how society use to be by your logic.
The older generation must have forgot about something called the time value of money and don't realize that the middle/lower class is falling behind majorly in this country because of it.
Go ahead FLS, I dare you to research some statistics.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 13, 2015, 11:56:37 AM
I didn't insult you. I said your statements that I quoted were nonsense. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 12:05:50 PM
You cannot say something is nonsense without providing an explanation as to why. I've provided viable arguments unlike you have, besides your cheap price/cheap quality arguments which won't hold water in the long run. Prices will have to increase inevitably and that is already happening.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 13, 2015, 12:23:48 PM
Economics is the study of human decision making. It doesn't change with the times.
You keep making up stuff I never said. Why is that? :D
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: -ammo- on October 13, 2015, 12:48:29 PM
Economics is the study of human decision making. It doesn't change with the times.
You keep making up stuff I never said. Why is that? :D
The truth is, I have not seen you post anything factual whatsoever.
[/size]Economics is the study of human decision making. It doesn't change with the times."
While you clearly think this is an incredible intelligent thing to say, it makes no sense. It is vague and carries no value. Maybe you can elaborate and define the statement.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 01:00:16 PM
Economics is the study of human decision making. It doesn't change with the times.
You keep making up stuff I never said. Why is that? :D
No, that is the study of philosophy, psychology, and sociology.
Economics is the study of money flow and distribution.
That might be half your problem, you have the wrong understanding of what economics really means. Econimics is fundamental and always comes down to the money sign. If you allocate money one direction for a certain amount of time you can record the changes it makes over time. Econimics flows in a chain reaction, if economies are overvalued they get corrected because people cannot afford products and prices must drop, if economies are undervalued, either you have to increase the money distribution to other areas or you have to make monitary sacrifices to adjust in order to gain prosperity in the long run. If you cannot do that, the economy will fail.
China is cheap, has low standards and is undervalued, they built their economy by stealing our production and workfroce for cheap. That in turn increases the value of their economy becsuse more money is being allocated to their markets. This causes the other market to lose value now because the money that was flowing inside that market has now shifted toward an outside economy. If you take money out of one economy and put it in another, you allocate the money out of the original market flow.
Greece failed because they do not have a proper money flow. They could not steal labor and productivity from the markets so they had to take out loans in order to fix their money flow. Their businesses dont make enough money, are taxed too high, and tax allocation is not directed properly, therefore they fail.
Business owners in America make up a very small portion of the population but do make over 400% more than the average middle class worker. If those business owners don't allocate the money correctly and intern reap higher % every year, instead of giving a % back in raises, than how do we expect to grow as a healthy nation? How do those businesses expect peolple to buy their products if they have to raise prices? 15 people with all the money doesn't make society a better place, they don't have the spending power that 250,000,000 other Americans have. This is why some nations are very wealthy while their people are poor as hell. The Government takes their money in taxes and gives nothing back. If you allocate the money better to 250M people, they will have more to spend and more to own, thus making the zone economy prosperable. The only way to do this is to pay Americans more and bring back the working class industry to America. These are sacrifices American business owners have to make if we want to see a happier and more prosperous society.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 13, 2015, 01:15:16 PM
The other HALF of economics theory's is the customer. If he can't or won't buy a product the bussines owner :rofl gets nothing. Your problems can be aided by a intelegent customer that tries to help the situation. Want a tip. Only by from people you know, exploit the system for fast cash at a nice job, get off the grid and ride a bike. Answers not theory talk please. :airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 13, 2015, 02:24:45 PM
No. Economics is a social science. It includes finance but it has a broader scope.
No, it is absolutely not a social science. Social science deals with thoughts and ideologies of PEOPLE.
Economics deals with supply and demand through monitary formulas and mathematics. Finance plays a huge part in economics, it explains debt and the reason for it. It explains how people are able to purchase large expensive houses and cars. It explains how bonds and stocks work. If people do not have the funds to finance a car or a home mortgage, this affects the economy negatively (2009). When you do one thing, it effects the other. If you give people loans they do not have the means to pay back, it effects the economy (watch what happens in the next 5 years with Student Loans).
Economics is a very important concept that either gives countries sustainability, growth, prosperity and so on, or it gives greedy government officials and greedy CEOs way more money than they should be making instead of allocating the funds back to their workforce or society. If these become lopsided, you get economies like China or Greece, where people work like slaves and have little to show for it because the Gment takes most of their earnings in taxes while not allocating it effectively. This is why some socialist countries are wealthy and some are poor. If large money holders are not responsible in allocating the money to a certain standard, it has a huge effect on the spending power of their countries. And like natcigg said, if you have a society full of people who wish they could be customers, but cant, even when working full time, the business fails and intern the market follows them.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zoney on October 13, 2015, 02:57:33 PM
Is it possible to ignore a topic?
I'm not trying to be mean, seriously, can you ignore a topic if you are simply not interested in seeing it?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Mar on October 13, 2015, 03:46:51 PM
I'm not trying to be mean, seriously, can you ignore a topic if you are simply not interested in seeing it?
Well you can ignore with extreme prejudice like they do in the movies, but you'll have to establish plausible deniability first. That said, at this point I am inclined to think that's the way we should go.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 13, 2015, 04:22:00 PM
The US has 94 million adults of working age out of the work force and effectively on limited fixed incomes. Or no purchasing power.
The population of the US is 320 million. In 2004 the ratio of workers to population was 71%. In 2013 it was back up to 63% which is a canard. The 94 million adults were not included from 2004 who could not find employment and gave up between 2007 and today. If they were included in the unemployment statistics today, we would be at almost 30% unemployment. We are even creating a generation of the never even got employed at this rate. The EU has the same problem. China doesn't because they artificially rig their outcomes which we and the EU have to take in the shorts and smile. We cannot compete with their prices, err money, mostly because we borrow their money to pay for their goods and our welfare states. It would take a madman to challenge this rather than wait for China to achieve whatever the end game is that empowers them.
WW2 solved this problem last time for the US and Europe during the Roosevelt imperial dynasty. He kept the US in the depression long after it could have naturally corrected itself. If he had not tried to control social justice outcomes for the very workers he was championing into the dirt. Or the policies he was putting in place to insure his party stayed in rule for the next century. Sounds familiar doesn't it.....
Back then we didn't have external competitive markets to dictate cost and price to our internal markets. The USA was the market that dictated to the world. The truth of this came after the war and the dramatic rise of the American middle class. Post WW2 we were China with better ethics.
Today, we and the EU are almost failed banana republics with mad men at the helm. And those running these banana republics are acting the part to the extreme. So global warming, running out of Oil, giant purple people eaters from Mars. What ever it takes so no one looks behind the curtain. If you are unwilling to, or, can't because the madmen and their enablers created laws to make it a crime to look behind the curtain. You will not be able to fix the problem until after the problem kills your country.
Technology has made it possible for us to not learn from any of our recent mistakes because we are following technology at such a high speed that we never have time to catch up with ourselves and reflect. Technology and the social structures evolving out of it's influences allows us to hide from ourselves and spawn new service industries to support and enable human weakness for money and political gain. Global warming, political correctness, racism, class envy, social justice, homophobia, anti religious fervor, the whole evolution of the technology revolution and our ever growing cult of everything in the world is wrong and I'm a victim. This is a very powerful emotional virus using technology at the speed of light as it's vector of contagion. The world wide phenomenon of extreme irrationalism to defend global warming or climate change or the end of Oil reserves showcases this virus and our relationship to technology.
The industrial revolution was slower so our mistakes were obvious while we still had time to reflect on ourselves. It was much more obvious that you were hiding in a bottle versus hiding in the virtual sphere seeking validation that we are victims of everything. And we had a strong public sentiment that life is full of those bad things but, no you are not a victim other than of yourself. Yet, recently, we had a social messiah elected twice because of being able to leverage technology to validate that self worship of victimhood.
So the next great global catastrophe is not something out there, it is inside of us and our dysfunctional relationship with technology. If we do not get control of that, the industrial revolution was too slow to allow us to destroy the world. And we were still too strong morally to drop anymore nukes. Now we make fun of the pope and consider Iran a victim.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: morfiend on October 13, 2015, 04:34:18 PM
I cant wait for GW,I wont have to live in an igloo for 6 months and my wife always wanted water front property! :devil
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 13, 2015, 05:03:17 PM
Doh! He got me! I guess they consider it theoretical because you cannot predict the future outcomes, although if you apply the correct fundamentals to economics, you achieve stable growth and sustainability in markets.
Now, how about disproving me on the rest of my thesis with articles and studies?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 13, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
Sounds like he has read Friedrich Hayek and is voicing his interpretation as you are yours. Economics is almost quantifiable mathematically until you introduce humans to the equation. Then you have to quantify humans and make some attempt to build a larger model of both. And suddenly you get politics in it's broader definition.
Maybe it's a chicken or the egg proposition. But, humans effect and change economics for absurd reasons as strongly as economics effects and changes absurd humans. You need to discover where in that cycle things are, not try to argue it doesn't exist because of how messy it is.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: BaldEagl on October 13, 2015, 06:33:57 PM
Economics 101: If I had $1 for every word in Bustr's posts I'd be rich.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 13, 2015, 06:55:42 PM
Doh! He got me! I guess they consider it theoretical because you cannot predict the future outcomes, although if you apply the correct fundamentals to economics, you achieve stable growth and sustainability in markets.
Now, how about disproving me on the rest of my thesis with articles and studies?
maybe you just reread your own textbooks, dont skip over the first chapter this time.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 13, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
No, it is absolutely not a social science. Social science deals with thoughts and ideologies of PEOPLE.
Economics deals with supply and demand through monitary formulas and mathematics. Finance plays a huge part in economics, it explains debt and the reason for it. It explains how people are able to purchase large expensive houses and cars. It explains how bonds and stocks work. If people do not have the funds to finance a car or a home mortgage, this affects the economy negatively (2009). When you do one thing, it effects the other. If you give people loans they do not have the means to pay back, it effects the economy (watch what happens in the next 5 years with Student Loans).
Economics is a very important concept that either gives countries sustainability, growth, prosperity and so on, or it gives greedy government officials and greedy CEOs way more money than they should be making instead of allocating the funds back to their workforce or society. If these become lopsided, you get economies like China or Greece, where people work like slaves and have little to show for it because the Gment takes most of their earnings in taxes while not allocating it effectively. This is why some socialist countries are wealthy and some are poor. If large money holders are not responsible in allocating the money to a certain standard, it has a huge effect on the spending power of their countries. And like natcigg said, if you have a society full of people who wish they could be customers, but cant, even when working full time, the business fails and intern the market follows them.
Those socialist ideas can be good on paper, the problem is and always has been the people. Leaders get greedy and workers get lazy. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 13, 2015, 09:46:54 PM
Doh! He got me! I guess they consider it theoretical because you cannot predict the future outcomes, although if you apply the correct fundamentals to economics, you achieve stable growth and sustainability in markets.
Now, how about disproving me on the rest of my thesis with articles and studies?
If you're referring to me I didn't "get you", I just corrected a common misconception. It doesn't invalidate your opinion. <S>
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: morfiend on October 14, 2015, 12:09:32 PM
Those socialist ideas can be good on paper, the problem is and always has been the people. Leaders get greedy and workers get lazy. :old:
The biggest problem is that some are more "equal" than others!
Look at the old USSR,some 10 to 15% of the land produced the most crops,why? Because that was the land allotted to the farmers for their own use.
This was the way it was,crops lay wasting in the fields because there was no incentive to harvast them,but the farmers own allotments were producing more and were harvested on time because it was for the farmers own use!
As I said some are more equal than others..... hmm sound an awful lot like capitalism doesnt it? 2 side of the same coin!
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 15, 2015, 12:19:32 PM
If you are falling prey to warming alarmist group think, here's something to add perspective:
The most-concise summary of it I can manage: Mankind's generation of CO2 is a vitally good thing. Without it, nearly all life on earth would cease to exist at the bottom of one of the next ice ages.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chris79 on October 15, 2015, 03:56:15 PM
The truth will stand stoically upon its own merit, a lie requires eternal vigilance to prevent it from collapsing under its own weight.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: oboe on October 15, 2015, 04:04:20 PM
The most-concise summary of it I can manage: Mankind's generation of CO2 is a vitally good thing. Without it, nearly all life on earth would cease to exist at the bottom of one of the next ice ages.
This doesn't make sense to me. Mankind's generation of CO2 certainly was neglible at the bottom of the last Ice Age. If it is so vitally good, how did Life survive the last Ice Age?
Also I thought the manmade CO2 emissions were a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of CO2 released by natural processes such as volcanism?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 15, 2015, 06:06:18 PM
This doesn't make sense to me. Mankind's generation of CO2 certainly was neglible at the bottom of the last Ice Age. If it is so vitally good, how did Life survive the last Ice Age?
Also I thought the manmade CO2 emissions were a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of CO2 released by natural processes such as volcanism?
According to the article:
CO2 is constantly being sequestered by various processes. If it doesn't get re-liberated, life on earth eventually has a big problem. Volcanoes do release CO2, but global warming folks have claimed (rightly or wrongly) that man caused CO2 to go from about 200 ppm to 400 ppm. Under 150 ppm, and life is in trouble, so the extra 200 ppm is vital given that it got to 180 ppm in one of the last ice ages.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chalenge on October 15, 2015, 07:21:08 PM
There is no link between carbon quantities and heat vectors that has ever been demonstrated. You might as well say the temperature is rising because there are fewer great actors in the world.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 15, 2015, 08:58:32 PM
a nice visual of co2 in the air. notice how much it decreases in the summer.
we have talked about the importance of co2. it take 6 co2 molecules to make one glucose molecule. this is the beginning of the food chain for almost all life on earth. mercury in energy efficient light bulbs is not necessary for life. lithium batteries are not needed for life. the latter two are pollutants that can kill life.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 15, 2015, 09:18:17 PM
Carbon dioxide is also very good att killing people. Edit: And you also have to concider all the other particles that are created when combusting carbohydrates.
Best reason for droping carbohydrates imo is that we get rid of combustion engines, it would be so much more awesome to have an electric car powered by a solar panel skin. Now we just pay a lot of money for fuel and then use 80% of it to make heat for the radiator...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: eagl on October 15, 2015, 09:25:26 PM
Carbon dioxide is also very good att killing people.
So is water, and you are FAR more likely to find yourself in a situation with too much water (ie. drowning) than in a situation with too much carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 15, 2015, 09:27:25 PM
So is water, and you are FAR more likely to find yourself in a situation with too much water (ie. drowning) than in a situation with too much carbon dioxide.
True. Ban water.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 16, 2015, 03:35:57 AM
Carbon dioxide is also very good att killing people. Edit: And you also have to concider all the other particles that are created when combusting carbohydrates.
Best reason for droping carbohydrates imo is that we get rid of combustion engines, it would be so much more awesome to have an electric car powered by a solar panel skin. Now we just pay a lot of money for fuel and then use 80% of it to make heat for the radiator...
sounds exciting. maybe ride a bike, or electric bike, washing solar panels on a cloudy day sound fruitless.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Aspen on October 16, 2015, 12:42:18 PM
"AP - The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
From the Washington Post.....November 22, 1922
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 16, 2015, 01:09:23 PM
:rofl
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 16, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
Carbon dioxide is also very good att killing people. Edit: And you also have to concider all the other particles that are created when combusting carbohydrates.
Best reason for droping carbohydrates imo is that we get rid of combustion engines, it would be so much more awesome to have an electric car powered by a solar panel skin. Now we just pay a lot of money for fuel and then use 80% of it to make heat for the radiator...
Right, because solar cells are so safe for the environment.
Keep in mind the following link is a pro-solar cell publication: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html
One day,....maybe.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 16, 2015, 02:34:42 PM
Dont you think Im aware of it?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Skuzzy on October 16, 2015, 02:42:23 PM
I am pretty sure a lot of people are not aware of it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 16, 2015, 02:52:03 PM
Most isnt, thats true. But i am. But on the other hand there are some interesting progress on the area. For ex scientist have found a way to use iron as a base for solar cells.
Edit: i Know there are a lot to sort out before its realistic. But it would still be awesome to have a car that you didnt need to refuel.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 16, 2015, 03:01:55 PM
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 16, 2015, 03:37:34 PM
that is nice. good thing the government did not buy 100,000 cars with the toxic tech. whew, a frantic fervor could cause bad decisions that waste resources.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 16, 2015, 04:01:46 PM
You can go to Gizmag and read about scientific "break throughs" out the bung hole.
Then you can keep reading about them at Gizmag about every 2-5 years as getting closer for prime time after the initial article hailing the "possible" parting of the seas and saving of mankind. In the end the world is full of "break throughs" and very few ever make it to market as the planet wide life changing thingamajig to save us from what ever the catastrophe flavor of the month. The holy grail for solar energy is 40% efficiency, the best today is almost 20% on a good day. Some Israelis though they had it by using nano particles of different wave lengths suspended in a matirix to capture more of the possible energy spectrum of light. That was 5 years ago and....... Then there is the movement to artificially duplicate photosynthesis and the movement to use a better catalyst and on and on.
Gizmag, if you search it's articles, has about a half dozen "solar" energy break throughs that .... well..... I believe Zimmie's is there to. Or the school of thought presented by another university group.
The point is, unless it's on a store shelf near you, it's wonderful entertainment but, has no impact on today or even 5 years from now because it doesn't yet exist outside of laboratory. But, makes for great counter points in this kinds of POSTS.
http://www.gizmag.com/
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Widewing on October 17, 2015, 10:27:22 AM
Climate change is the latest name for silliness... It's always changing. I believe the man-made warming guys are getting very nervous....
Britain's Meteorology Office just issued a warning that Britain might be facing another Maunder Minimum period of cooling. Ditto for most of the northern hemisphere. Lasting 50 years, 100 years, maybe longer...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: oboe on October 17, 2015, 02:15:02 PM
That website reminds me of the National Enquirer. There are header stories about statues on Mars, UFOs, parallel universes, a gang killing of a pedophile by feeding him dog poo, etc.
They also said that the Maunder Minimum, which froze the River Thames 300 years ago, will be offset by recent global warming. <shrug> just seems more like sensational journalism than science to me...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bj229r on October 17, 2015, 02:23:32 PM
So.....in case it hasn't been covered in the previous 28 pages, how much warming has there been? 5 degrees, 10?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: BaldEagl on October 17, 2015, 02:49:45 PM
Carbon dioxide is also very good att killing people. Edit: And you also have to concider all the other particles that are created when combusting carbohydrates.
Best reason for droping carbohydrates imo is that we get rid of combustion engines, it would be so much more awesome to have an electric car powered by a solar panel skin. Now we just pay a lot of money for fuel and then use 80% of it to make heat for the radiator...
I think you might have meant hydrocarbons. Carbohydrates create energy and body fat in the human body. They are metabolized into glucose (sugar).
I can't believe I'm the only one who noticed this but I guess they do eventually get released into the atmosphere :D.
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
Mother nature will cool and warm in cycles as she has for melinium.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 18, 2015, 08:53:57 PM
I want to touch on the solar issue briefly. As Herr Skuzzmeister accurately indicated, photovoltaic solar panel mfg is a bit of a dirty beast.
About a decade ago, back when I was working in Ford's sustainable mobility engineering group, I ran across a little company in Kennewick, Washington called Infinia. I went out there. It was a long and involved business case, but the gist of their viability was two-pronged: on the one hand, they had some fairly well-developed free-piston Stirling engine technology, on the other they had an huge order bank for solar power generators. This order bank was -no lie- in the billions, largely courtesy of the governments of Spain and FRG. The company was thus in the position, perhaps enviably ( but perhaps not, if you think a little and know a thing or two about capital-intensive industry and the risk you assume when you start putting units in the field) of having a bank of orders whose maturity exceeded that of the technology for sale.
That was part of the reason they were talking to yours truly, for their straits were dire. Imagine, if you will, putting thousands of approx 20k purchase price units out in the field, all with some form of warranty, as stipulated by a couple of governments ( against whom you can only expect to lose in a civil court).
In any case, their technology was advanced and pretty well developed, though their 3kw Gensets ( a solar dish, at whose focus was the heat reservoir for the small free piston Stirling engine, which, as I recall, ran with a pleasing hum) had loooong payoff periods, which only made the quality and durability issue more critical.
Later, Spain went broke... The Spanish portion of their orders were suspended, and I lost track... But suspect they ran afoul of the cost-volume death spiral.
A few points: 1.PV solar isn't the only solar game in town, though it has a much lower hurdle to entry than Infinia's approach. 2. As Bustr (pbuh) notes, just because some clowns in a lab can make a prototype do something, that doesn't mean it is suitable for widespread adoption. 3. While some will allege otherwise, the Ford Motor Company -and probably all other OEMs-are intensely interested in new energy technologies, but that doesn't mean any of those OEMs are about to put something out in the field that hasn't been thoroughly validated, not just for function, but also for the entire suit of validation hurdles we impose. Most people have no idea how long it takes to prove out a new technology to the point that you can confidently stick it in a consumer product that will be used per design but also summarily abused, spindled, mutilated, and smashed into a bridge abutment.
Regarding that last point, I recently broke ties with this idiot savant inventor who was doing a little work with cold combustion. He seemed to think that an automotive application for his crudely-developed idea ( which had some basic merit, in power density terms, as I found when I analyzed it) was a mere year or two away. He didn't like my attitude and all this talk of at least a decade of development and testing, never mind the issues of billions in required capitalization.
No. We don't just slap things together and strap them on to a drunken teenager. If we did, the lawsuits would be crippling. The world is thus. Thus have we made the world.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 21, 2015, 10:20:36 PM
I’ve been back/“around” for the past few days. I re-read the thread and I saw some low hanging fruit here and there to pick at. (OK, I’ll admit it, for some of you I had to go up a rung or two on a step ladder). I have written some draft responses off-line, I think that I can get almost all of them out real soon.
Short and to the point, that is an excellent idea.
My current thoughts:
If you see a foul, call a foul. Let’s not clear out the benches and meet in mid field for a brawl. Sometimes people just don’t see the implication(s) or impact(s) of some of their statements. It happens to me, it happens to you.
On the issue of playing the man: Sometimes, an association that someone has with an organization, a funding source or some other monetary gain is just too great to ignore. And from time to time with specific people or organizations it seems obvious that one should challenge the motivations of some. I am not against someone making a lawful living. I think that if you suggest that someone is acting out of ulterior motives, then I think that you must also provide an argument and proof of your claim. And by-the-way, you can list as many links as you want, but unless the links are there to provide proof for your argument or, if the link itself contains its own substantive argument that proves your point, don’t bother. I too can use the Google machine to find caustic rants on just about any cause celebre.
As an example, let me use a, I guess now former, politician who is said to be raiding our treasuries and stealing candy right out of the grasp of babies as they lie sleeping in their prams.
The critics of An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) couldn’t help tripping over each other trying to get to a camera to Opine about this or that, or to design some eye candy for click throughs.
Now I am a firm believer that reviewed work only strengthens it. Peer reviews in science are a must. And usually newly presented work goes through several peer review processes (at least stuff meant for publication). So some ask how did (AIT) make it through a peer review process and so isn’t this just proof of their “junk” science.
Well, AIT is not a science paper, it is a presentation made by a communicator to an audience.
Having said that, I do think that it is important to be vigorous when reviewing documentaries and instructional material. AIT is no expectation.
I remember watching several years ago some “expert” on I guess Fox go on about the personal assets liquidation process that the owners of AIT would have to go through to pay off damages if it was ever taken to court. (I do remember wondering who the injured party would be, but never mind).
It did go to trial however. That is AIT the film was challenged in court. In England a local school official sued the English secretary of Education to stop distribution of the film. The short of the long of it is that a judge found 2 “errors” and said that nine “errors” were in effect frivolous. (BTW it was the judge who put quotation marks around the word error). What did the judge think AIT got wrong?
1. AIT said that Mount Kilimanjaro glacier is shrinking due to Global Warming. In fact it appears to be caused by deforestation.
2. AIT mislabeled a chart. The chart was right, wrong person was cited.
The thing about Mount Kilimanjaro is that the deforestation trigger was determined after AIT had been out. And the deforestation finding does not disprove Global Warming. What it is saying that on Mount Kilimanjaro deforestation is by far the leading cause of the melt.
As I have said before, science is not infallible. The reason that science will also tend to win out is that it says, if you think I am wrong, bring me evidence, if the scientific community agrees with you, then if appropriate, a correction or modification needs to be made.
Denialists, far from really understanding this point, believe erroneously that if they find one error that a whole house of cards will tumble down like the Walls of Jericho. Of course when that doesn’t happen, they express in frustration that the rest of the world has been fooled.
BTW: What were the other nine errors? The judge in effect called then opinions. The strongest argument that I have heard (and I am not saying that I totally agree) is that AIT went just a little too Hollywood.
If you are interested in considering other errors in AIT try here: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Goreacknowledgederrors.htm (http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Goreacknowledgederrors.htm)
So why did I spend so much time on AIT? Well for one I’m sometimes a wind bag, but really to try to force home a point? If you think that someone is acting out of ulterior motives, then provide proof. We can then discuss, evaluate and assess the point.
One other issue I want to put out there. Unless you are the lawyer or the mother of a defendant on trial for murder, anyone who covers up, excuses or rationalizes a murder or mass murders, for a fee or not, is in my mind a vile human being and I will not deal with them. (I was prompted to say because of a reply that I have almost finished for Brooke). (And no, I am not saying that Brooke is vile.)
On review of your post, I guess that I should say that the following sums up my assessment of my own education and credentials.
cont...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 21, 2015, 10:21:35 PM
As to your highlighting of satellite data and REMSS issues; yes it is worthy of discussion. What I want to mention though is that your last two paragraphs have had me thinking for the past two weeks. I’ll need some time, (yes I am a very slow person). Besides replying to the satellite data issues, I think that I am going to try to go off in a bit of an esoteric direction a express some thoughts that you could call the scientific “path of skeptic”.
After all, every idea we have ever had, was at one point, only believed by one person.
So let me get this out. As well as the handful of other almost ready replies that I have.
Right now there are these people around here who keep coming into my field of vision and they look vaguely familiar. It is a bit creepy. Anyway they keep talking about what I guess is some sort of an organization called a family. So apparently, within the sociological construct of this organization I have certain roles, responsibilities and I guess what you might call a series of sacrament like acts that I am responsible for. It is not entirely clear to me what sort of sanctions might be imposed on me if I refuse carry out all or any one of my tasks. But I should say that right now there is some sort of an intuitive inner voice that keeps telling me in a firm manner that “You had better get the hell get out of that chair and attend to your personalized to do list”. And in point of fact, there actually is a person right now outside of my office warning me that “You had better get the hell get out of that chair and attend to your personalized to do list”
Before I hit reply, I wanted to re-post something that is very relevant here. I’m not sure how many people actually read and then watched the video, and I do not know if you did or not. But anyway the following is from a post a little while ago,
I want to say at the outset that I do not engage in these community posts with any delusion that minds are going to substantially change. White middle aged (or older) western males, (or perhaps just all mature men worldwide, I do not know) rarely publicly acknowledge a change in their positions. If they do, it is usually because the issue is inconsequential to them, or, they find themselves trying to find a face saving eddy to shelter in until the storm passes. A consequence of Argument as War where learning equals losing perhaps?
For me anyway, I tend to think that because writing is a “linear” process, whereas thinking is not, that writing helps me to organize and sharpen my thoughts. In other words, it is a pretty selfish endeavor.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 21, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
In the 70's we were warned of impending doom from global cooling.
Good question. Go ask the 1970s editors of Time and Newsweek why they ran those stories. You can always find someone to quote or misquote in your pursuit of a need to satisfy an ever larger circulation target.
BTW, ask yourself, how many scientists (verifiable), universities, government agencies like NASA or the Pentagon or the CIA, or international bodies in the 1970s came out to unequivocally and repeatedly say that there was a “impending doom from global cooling” on the way?
In the 90's it was global warming. Now it's just called climate change.
You are right in the sense that many journalists have started to just call everything as Climate Change.
Their meanings in the scientific community, however, has been pretty consistent:
• Global warming refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature,
• Climate change refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature.
There is a really fascinating back story into why possibly some people started to refer to just Climate Change, but I don’t have the time here. I promise to post about it soon.
This is actually a great question. But first, can you tell me how much of say, Florida, you could tolerate being under water in say perhaps 50 to 100 years?
I have seen some models where Florida goes from its current donkey sized phallic symbol to something resembling our hamster’s pride and joy. It is all possible, and in the opinion of many, probable, in 50 to 100 years.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 21, 2015, 10:36:28 PM
It amazes me how the UN and IPCC want to dictate the world economy based on 40 years of climate data. When that is almost the exact length of the Sun's activity cycles.
I think we are less than a decade away from a major milestone in fusion, and maybe two decades away from commercialization. It will be a game-changer.
I believe that you are mistaken. The awareness of Global Warming and the scientific analysis that that awareness sparked goes back “40 years” (Actually a little bit more, but it is OK for now).
The data on Global Warming goes back, decades, centuries, thousands, tens of thousands to millions of years ago.
If you want one visual diagram of the recent history of climate work:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/34g56jq.jpg)
If you want to read up on the history of the study of Climate Change see here: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm (https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 21, 2015, 10:44:10 PM
Good to see the Conservatives stepping up and debunking the horse shaat of the lefties. <S> Eagl, Caldera, and the rest
What an interesting statement you make.
So I guess that my thoughts are that I’ll just leave it up to individuals to decide if there has been a “debunking the horse shaat of the lefties. “ (As I have said elsewhere, I think that everyone in this community has made up their minds on just about everything and they are not going to change. We are here just having some fun – Hopefully )
So are there any “horse shaat” of the righties, or really I should say, climate deniers, that we should perhaps think about?
Do you know who one of the largest non-profit foundation groups that funds climate denier activities is? It is the Heartland Institute. They fund papers, seminars, pay for speeches, even fund colleges and universities all to try to show that Global Warming is not happening and that it is some sort of liberal hoax.
If you want to make a living denying that climate change is happening, then the Heartland Institute is your sort of place. They do other stuff, I am just focusing on one issue.
In fact they very proudly boast of their image as: The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” — The Economist, May 26, 2012
They are against things like tobacco laws, and well, you name it and if you can fund them, there is a good chance that they will be in your corner.
See here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute)
On Global Warming, they have their usual set of explanations and accusations that has people like me having a good laugh from time to time. They got your standard conspiracy theories about how agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are suppressing “true” climate data and trove of other beauties. (Thinking about it, I am wondering what they think has happened over at the Pentagon and the CIA?)
But I have to tell you, the Heartland Institute gets my Crazy Climate Denial Explanation Award of perhaps all time.
In reacting to the Pope’s encyclical on climate change, the Heartland Institute suggested that the Pope is now under Pagan influences! That’s right, the Pope could be a Pagan.
I am not making this up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=behch3XrH1E
I guess that from now on, the seminal construction of the greatest metaphysical question of all time, “Is the Pope catholic?” should be replaced by asking “Is the Pope a Pagan?”
I should say that I when I first saw your post the use of the term “Conservatives” annoyed me somewhat. Globally most conservatives and conservatives groups believe that Global Warming is happening and that it is caused by humans. The ONLY substantial group of conservatives that take exception to this are US conservatives.
It was put to me the other day that the only government in power today in the world that does not believe in Global Warming is in the US (well a section of it anyway). And given the recent changes in leadership in Australia, I’m thinking that that might be a true statement.
Here is another way of recognizing that US conservatives have just gone off some deep end on this issue. Every oil company in the world has come out and said:
• That Climate Change is happening
• That humans are the cause of, or, (for a small number of these companies) contribute to, Global Warming
• That changes in human activity can stop or reverse the current trends.
Here, for example is what Chevron says on their web site:
“Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere. We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do. Mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and continuation of scientific and technological research should all be considered.”
Well, there is one exception to the above three statements. Almost all US based subsidiaries or components of these oil companies do not wholly or completely endorse the above statements.
Want more information on this? See here: http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change (http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change)
Conservatives around the world have actually put forward well-reasoned arguments on Global Warming, -- what to focus on – what to do …Some of them are actually quite interesting and convincing.
Please do not associate what can more accurately and more truthfully be described as a carnival show within current US conservatism with the vast majority of conservatives around the world. It is an insult to most conservatives to do so.
If you are interested in the encyclical see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/read-pope-franciss-full-document-on-climate-change/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/read-pope-franciss-full-document-on-climate-change/)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 21, 2015, 10:48:31 PM
Same info on both charts. And again let's ask what the temperature should be.
I like this images; Sears Tower, Chicago and CN tower Toronto compared with the icecap once covered this places and was same with most of northern Europe Asia; warming is good, this places would be still uninhabitable.
As to your highlighting of satellite data and REMSS issues; yes it is worthy of discussion. What I want to mention ... {ETC}
Well, now you're talking a language I understand, Sys. I'll pick up on a couple of quick points, because, yes, I too have a life and obligations (who are these people who play all day?). This too I find eminently understandable - as well as the assertions regarding the opinions of aging males. Regardless, even, or maybe especially, aging males hate to be simply dismissed as loonies without a hearing.
Regarding the impeachment of a source: clearly some sources will seek a particular finding. However, this bias will invariably show in their work. Consider the case around the Mann hockey stick and its subsequent debunk at the hands of Guelph's McKittrick. Both have funding sources that might lend taint - as could be said of just about anyone (consider that most Michael Moore films are basically games of six degrees of separation). In the end, the only thing to be evaluated is the work itself.
I too have read the court findings from the British case. I interpret somewhat differently, and source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills)
Of particular note to me was the judge's finding regarding what amounts to the central thesis of AGW (number 4, I think); that CO2 emissions are driving temp. Per the judge's eval, not so fast - and that's is where I'm at. Even AGW advocates will admit that CO2 lags temp changes, although the lag period is only about 1/6th of the temp change, period, generally. No, I do not believe a single error necessarily causes the whole case to collapse, but CO2 as driver is central to current AGW thinking. The torture of the theory to gloss over this lag is counter intuitive, at best.
My own take, though, on what causes IPCC climate modeling (a separate topic, clearly) to fail is failure... these models repeatedly fail to correlate and have no predictive value, as has been shown. Back when I used to run Vehdyn sims with ADAMS, failure to correlate meant you missed something significant... and this is easy to do, even in a system of 10-20 degrees of freedom, much less and entire climate system.
As for changing my mind, I pledge: If IPCC can show me solid correlation of their predicted values to actuals, I'm there. Why? Because I need to see it to believe it, as opposed to the other way around.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 22, 2015, 07:15:37 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 22, 2015, 08:15:53 PM
Run amigos run! :pray! "The Strongest El Nino in Decades Is Going to Mess With Everything " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-21/a-huge-el-nino-is-spreading-all-kinds-of-mayhem-around-the-world?cmpid=yhoo.headline
But if gets worst they'll open a portal at CERN in days, move all of us in a parallel universe, without global warming ; I read this one and ..... :headscratch: :bhead :( ; me ..no understand English,... how,...how to understand "parallel universe" :bhead
"Scientists at Large Hadron Collider hope to make contact with PARALLEL UNIVERSE in days " http://www.newshour.com.bd/2015/10/18/scientists-at-large-hadron-collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-parallel-universe-in-days/
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 23, 2015, 08:27:55 AM
Hurricane Patricia cat 5, the strongest hurricane recorded in Pacific wind gusts 245mph=394kmh :pray :pray
live cam; Puerto Vallarta; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUgyOFEI8-Q
Regarding your now Rule 14'd remarks, Bustr (pbuh), yes, I believe what you described near the end is what I would summarize as "the construction of an unimpeachable theory". The key weasel word is always "may".
I noticed it more acutely when the "pause" occurred and the language accompanying shifted to "climate change" (or, as my local UM college radio station, itself a hotbed of political thought of a very particular variety now calls it: "global weirdness") from "global warming". This is beautiful, in a snake-oil sales sort of way, because, as we know, the climate changes and has done so since Day 1. Attributing this to a cause is also easy. It's substantiating the causal link where the IPCC isn't quite so good. Hence the need for a murky and unimpeachable theory for the masses. Welcome to the Temples of Syrinx. The IPCC appears to have appointed themselves priests.
I note as a FUN aside, btw, that Pachauri ran afoul of some harassment charges. I enjoyed a little schadenfreude at his expense. He probably would NOT enjoy time in a room alone with me, since I put him right up there with serial plagiarist Zakaria as someone whose map I'd fully rearrange, if given the chance. In Zak's case, there would be particular focus on hammering those lower stubs out with the butt (why waste a knuckle?) of my wicked left hand. I REALLY don't like either Pachauri or Zakaria, bottom line, and am still big and fit and mean enough to be capable of that kind of nastiness, despite my years and domestication and generally benevolent disposition.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 23, 2015, 01:02:06 PM
As long as a GW scientist is never placed before a judge and jury, then asked the obvious questions with consequences for lying.
1. Can you tell me what the weather will be on 1\1\2100? 2. Can you tell me what the weather will be on 1\1\2085? 3. Can you tell me what the weather was on 1\1\ -13,000? 4. Can you tell me what the sunspot activity will be on 1\1\2100? 5. Will you be alive on 1\1\2100 to verify your opinion?
As long as it's only scientists opinions the movie used for inspiration, then it is buyer beware if the scientists are not attempting fraud. And this cannot be proved because the event will happen so far in the future. That is why the judge in the UK didn't find against the movie because the movie is only opinion. No party was harmed by the watching of the movie.
Granted the opinions have basis in sound physical phenomenon computer models projecting the future. But, we as a species have not kept records through one complete cycle of warming, ice age, and warming. So in the courtroom scenario, the scientist would have to admit he is trying to predict the future and it is his "opinion" what will happen after he is deceased. And if you choose to believe his opinion in predicting the future, that is your choice.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 24, 2015, 09:16:36 AM
The trend in the antarctic, as I cited, is one of increase.
In short, there are a number of competing theories and explanations out there and, when the theory and data match and when the theory proves itself to have predictive and correlative value, THEN the science will be settled.
I had actually responded to a similar post a few weeks ago. You are making a slightly more nuanced point though.
I can agree with you on the issue in that there are still competing theories out there, but I sense that the disparity between a melting hypothesis and the data is not as far apart as you seem to be suggesting. But my main point is only that what is in disagreement in the mainstream now is how fast the melting/collapse will be. Are you aware of anyone/group that is signaling that their data is showing that all Antarctic LAND ice is either completely stable or increasing?
Your statement that: “The trend in the antarctic, as I cited, is one of increase” has already been superseded by new experiments, data and analysis. In 2012, because of the data sets, you had a strong point. Today, in 2015, the data and consensus is that LAND ice is certainly not increasing. What is increasing is SEA ice, which of course would be seasonal. So all the frozen water you are looking at in August is gone six months later. And of course the pattern repeats itself year after year.
There have been observations that from year to year the SEA ice in the Antarctic during these winters shows an increase in the area, or surface size, of the SEA ice pack. Annually this phenomenon is the source of many joyous declarations that the “warmist” cart has been toppled. “Late breaking Climate Science shows that warmists are idiots and blah, blah, blah. But of course whatever freezes in the winter down there, melts in its summer.
There are a number of ideas as to what this all might mean. Far from being a reassuring phenomenon it actually could be a sign of real trouble ahead. See links below. I do not know, maybe I should cast it as the handy work of the Greek Gods of trickery and deceit: Dolos and Apate. You know, just to give the whole thing a bit of a religious bent to make the subject more appealing for some.
LAND ice in Western Antarctic is melting fast. LAND ice in Eastern Antarctic appears stable. But take a look at a UTeaxs study: http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2015/03/east-antarctica-melting-could-be-explained-by-oceanic-gateways (http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2015/03/east-antarctica-melting-could-be-explained-by-oceanic-gateways) Not very reassuring or calming is it?
In summary:
• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate • Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean • Currently there are significant observational differences between East and West Antarctic.
...atmospheric CO2 would go from 400 ppm (today's level) to about 800 ppm (unless I made a math error)...
Hmm…
Right now experiments at target ambient [CO2] + 200 ppm (µmol mol-1 on a volume basis) are showing on average of 50% less crop yields. (So that would be ~600 ppm)
I am actually OK with you using her charts and providing your own alternative explanation of the data, (perhaps you could email her on your thoughts and start a back and forth discussion),
But I really do think that if you would have thought about it that you would have included some form of her statement on what to consider when viewing her work. She ends up in a very different place, perhaps the complete opposite place (?) from you.
“Atmospheric CO2 is positively correlated with globally averaged surface temperatures for most of the Phanerozoic. This pattern has been previously shown at coarse 10-million-year timescales and is demonstrated here at finer resolutions (one million to five million-year timescales). The two longest-lived Phanerozoic glaciations during the Permo-Carboniferous and late Cenozoic are the only Phanerozoic intervals associated with consistently low levels of CO2 (<500 ppm). This pattern supports predictions from global climate models for a CO2-ice threshold of 560–1120 ppm (DeConto and Pollard, 2003; Pollard and DeConto, 2005). (Pages 5672-3).
Many factors are important in controlling the average surface temperature of the Earth, including solar luminosity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbital parameters, and other greenhouse gases. The message of this study is not that atmospheric CO2 is always the dominant forcing (see Section 3.7 for an early Paleogene example). Instead, given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic. This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally averaged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.”
Here is another view on the issue. (BTW: This guy is from George Mason!)
You are correct that a theory is not a law, however the common use of phrases such as "its just a theory" used with regard to scientific theory illustrate that the meaning of theory as used in science is not understood by a great number of people.
About once a year we go to a particular relative’s house (once in a while they come to us) and every year it is a bit like Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day. These relatives of ours (who strangely are on my wife’s side) do not believe in things like evolution and so on.
“I mean it is a theory! It says so right in the title – The Theory of Evolution. If it was a law they would call it the Law of Evolution…”
BTW (and this might sound like a strange statement), these relatives of ours, in a sense, don’t really view their account of creation as a religious matter. To them it is a historical account from a source that they trust.
In a sense I can understand where they are coming from and I feel that I should respect what they might refer to as their “secular” perspective on this specific matter. (I’m not sure what other word to use here).
Consider the following. If someone approached you and said:
• Don’t kill people
• Don’t steal their stuff
• And Don’t sleep with my spouse
Most of us are willing to accept this advice in its plain and simple context. My guess is that you are going say/think something like “Well that sounds like pretty good advice”. I doubt that most people are going to reject it because they believe that they can establish an association of it to some religious reference.
I suppose that what I am saying is this. I find it annoying/frustrating in discussions when the vernacularized sense of the term Theory is used to construct what in reality is a weak argument against a particular scientific belief; However, I don’t automatically dismiss or hold in contempt people who do not agree with me as to when something should be viewed through the lenses of generally accepted scientific principles.
In some cases I only try to get an acknowledgement that a particular view that they hold, while perfectly acceptable to hold within a faith based system, is none-the-less not science. Sometime I succeed, sometimes I don’t.
I should point out, that these relatives of ours, are very nice, gentle and caring people. I really don’t mind going through “the routine” once a year. It is usually fun. And in some years, towards the end of our stay, I actually see them give ground and start to consider some of what I say. (I worry about their kids though. They are home schooled and I wonder in what manner they will function in a modern world.)
But getting back to the main point, the scientific/academic community has not always maintained consistency in the usage of the terms (or perhaps just explaining them) over I guess what would be centuries. I have a pet hypothesis (note that I didn’t say theory) that sometimes scientists have perhaps chosen one term over the other based on contemporaneous perceptions of relative prestige. (I also have a competing pet hypothesis that if you are on the lower end of the Department’s organizational chart, your Department Chair is not going to let you use the term Law on anything).
I ran across this story a few years ago. A famous mathematician from the 1940s and 50s, John von Neumann provided the following advice to Claude Shannon. (Some people consider him to be the founding father of the electronic communication age https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Whj_nL-x8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Whj_nL-x8)). Anyway I thought that the quote was memorable.
“You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, no one really knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.” - John von Neumann
The point is that scientists and academics are not immune from the temptations of what might be called the “marketing” of their ideas.
Anyway, I came across a definition and discussion of the terms by a Professor Ronald Matson. I was impressed with his thoughts. . http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html (http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html)
One quick definition he provides:
• A law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met.
• A theory explains how nature works.
There is more on the site.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 24, 2015, 07:26:23 PM
I have no hostile intent here; but could you please point out to me where you think there is a relevant argument in the ACS paper that proves, or just somehow supports, the Register’s charges or your contention that “The global warming apple cart has been overturned by a new discovery, it seems....”?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 24, 2015, 08:30:39 PM
Right now experiments at target ambient [CO2] + 200 ppm (µmol mol-1 on a volume basis) are showing on average of 50% less crop yields. (So that would be ~600 ppm)
I don't see that detriment to crop yields in your references. Many references talk about more co2 increasing plant growth significantly. Your references seem to mention benefits, too, but they are so cumbersomely wordy that I can't tell in a quick reading.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 24, 2015, 09:01:43 PM
What I'm pointing out is very simple -- and I don't need to reference anything other than the data for this point:
In the past of the earth, both temperature and co2 was a substantially higher than today, yet life (both animal and plant) thrived. That is all.
I would say that that is a bit irrelevant, we can sustain higher temperatures yes but that is not the main issue, The problem would be that the change happen too fast for us to adapt to it. it will not kill all life on the planet but it can cause some major issues like droughts forcing people in warmer countries to move to less warm countries. That mean poor people moving to richer countries and as we all know that isn't friction free... The rules does not allow us to cover that part of the climate change issue but my point is that its more in it than just psychical survival.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 24, 2015, 10:16:20 PM
I would say that that is a bit irrelevant, we can sustain higher temperatures yes but that is not the main issue, The problem would be that the change happen too fast for us to adapt to it.
But many people do make the argument that magnitude is the thing, not just rate of change -- people who think that life on earth is threatened if co2 reaches a particular level (regardless of rate of change). I addressed it for those people.
As for rate of change, we already determined that the change is very slow on human scale (like 1.3 m of sea level change over 80 years, where change in tides is many places is a lot more than that).
Also, none of the folks expressing concern about climate change seems even the slightest bit worried about ice ages. An ice age is drastically more destructive than warming. An ice age would wipe out the large majority of life on earth, humans included. Also, ice ages are not speculation and have happened regularly in the past.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 24, 2015, 10:53:32 PM
A lot of this debate is about irrelevant issues. The worst case scenarios are just worst case scenarios but they are the ones that media picks up. On the other end of the scale is the deniers and unfortunately that is the 2 standpoints that you hear most of. People forget about the more realistic issues, heavy pollution of air and water in cities for ex. Or more frequent droughts in poor countries forcing people to move. Many poor countries have a very thin margin and are very sensitive to climate changes. But the debate is most about polar bears and sea level rise, typical "first world" issues.
An ice age is not too good either but we are not in any immediate danger of it, it will come a new ice age but it will still be in a (for humans) distant future. The solar spot activity and "mini ice age" is again something exaggerated by media.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 25, 2015, 05:52:03 AM
I don't see that detriment to crop yields in your references. Many references talk about more co2 increasing plant growth significantly. Your references seem to mention benefits, too, but they are so cumbersomely wordy that I can't tell in a quick reading.
The link that I had to the article in my post was part of a much more robust response to your comments. It was suggesting that even with really interesting positive indications on crops with increased CO2, it none-the-less looks as total crop yield will drop significantly. The reference to: Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE shows I think those benefits.
At one point when I was typing up my thoughts I said to myself ‘Boy this is going on a bit’. And my estimate was that I was probably only about half way through. So when I am the one that is thinking that it is ‘going on a bit’, we can all be reasonably assured that it has gone on for a bit.
So I thought just make the main point, other people have lives to live. Here is the reference I should have posted:
https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Long_2006.pdf (https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Long_2006.pdf) Food for Thought: Lower-Than Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
“Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by È50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.”
“The CO2 fertilization effects, derived from chamber experiments, currently used in crop models forecast substantial increases in future crop production under conditions associated with climate change. The FACE experiments, conducted in open fields, are not without their limitations (26, 35), but represent our best simulations of the future elevated [CO2] environment”
Thanks for pointing out the issue to me.
It is not a straight line series of causations. (I fully expect someone to come along and quote something like this study and say that “direct fertilization increases crop yield in experiments with high levels of CO2” show increased crop yields”. It will show up as a FOX News science special one day.)
What is interesting about FACE is that as an open air experiment, results are expected to be more realistic than those from a traditional closed lab environment. One of the notations I picked here and there going through the articles was that the observations from FACE are quite different from traditional labs. I am sure more interesting observations will come from FACE.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 25, 2015, 05:56:05 AM
The most-concise summary of it I can manage: Mankind's generation of CO2 is a vitally good thing. Without it, nearly all life on earth would cease to exist at the bottom of one of the next ice ages.
There are only a few people in the world who to my mind don’t need to be afforded any of the courtesies or niceness usually provided to other people. (Playing the man instead of the ball? Yep, but in my book anyone who tries to excuse and ‘pretty up’ the murder of 35,000 people for a fee isn’t going to get much of anything from me.)
If you want to argue the point, find someone else who makes the same claim and I’ll reply.
So who is Patrick Moore?
Patrick Moore is not the founder of Greenpeace. (He used to call himself the Co-founder of Greenpeace. I guess either he or someone else has given him a promotion).
Here is Greenpeace’s statement on Moore’s claim:
Patrick Moore Did Not Found Greenpeace Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. …. Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.
Among the many other sickening things he is quoted as saying:
• That - “clear-cutting is good for forests” • That – “Three Mile Island was actually “a success story””.. • That - “drinking glyphosate [(Monsanto's Roundup herbicide)] was safe” (Which he refused to drink himself when presented with the opportunity in an interview)
And the one that just goes too far me:
• He said that well – “people get killed everywhere” when asked why he was involved with improving the image of the Argentinian government during the period that 35,000 people were killed by death squads.
What I'm pointing out is very simple -- and I don't need to reference anything other than the data for this point:
In the past of the earth, both temperature and co2 was a substantially higher than today, yet life (both animal and plant) thrived. That is all.
When CO2 was high the sun was a lot cooler. In fact models show that the earth could have been a block if ice if not for the CO2. (I can find references if needed - but you google right?)
As for Temp. Let me know what time frame you are thinking of. (I am running out of time again and I want to make sure that I am not wasting it on something that you and I agree on.)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 25, 2015, 05:34:18 PM
An ice age is not too good either but we are not in any immediate danger of it, it will come a new ice age but it will still be in a (for humans) distant future.
Maybe not so distant. Look at this chart of ice ages. You can see from the chart that one could be starting now for all we (or anyone else) knows.
I would say that that is a bit irrelevant, we can sustain higher temperatures yes but that is not the main issue, The problem would be that the change happen too fast for us to adapt to it. it will not kill all life on the planet but it can cause some major issues like droughts forcing people in warmer countries to move to less warm countries. That mean poor people moving to richer countries and as we all know that isn't friction free... The rules does not allow us to cover that part of the climate change issue but my point is that its more in it than just psychical survival.
One point my experience brings to mind is some forms of life move faster than others. A warm season can cause disease to grow rapidly (or less) where the host plant may take generations to move. well, the plant does not move, the offspring "moves" by way of the changing environment moving the suitable ecosystem elsewhere.
We humans are smart enough we can see the changes, understand them, and adapt. Now Im not saying drop a nuke on D.C. and then spread plague in china and india because they are doing what we all want, but logical management of the changing world and changing needs.
Telling people to stop what they are doing for survival and start driving electric cars that are impractical is not going to save the world. Probably nothing will save the world to keep it like it is. we will have to adapt to the changes caused by our presence, wars will happen, disease will happen, and mother earth will cycle around again.
Im going to try and avoid these problems by being a good person, that is to share my knowledge with someone else so they can be a little better off than when I got here. :salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 25, 2015, 06:06:29 PM
It was suggesting that even with really interesting positive indications on crops with increased CO2, it none-the-less looks as total crop yield will drop significantly.
I think that you have misinterpreted the paper. It doesn't say that crop yields are 50% lower with more co2.
It says "In those trials, elevated [CO 2 ] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies." To put it in math terms, let's say that nominal yield is Y and yield in "enclosure studies" is Y + dY. According to this statement, yield in the the paper's trial would then be Y + 0.5 * dY. The studies clearly show increase in yield with increased co2, as you can see in all of the graphs.
The authors go on to speculate about the magnitude of 0.5 * dY compared other effect in some models (not giving any details or analysis). Even that speculation doesn't say that yields with more co2 are 50% less than yields without more co2. It says things like " This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO 2 ] will fully offset losses due to climate change." It could still be an increase, it could be a decrease, it could be a wash. Also, it could be that the models are crap (like so many climate-related models because, as I wrote about before, complicated models that have 1 zillion adjustable parameters often have absolutely no predictive capability). But the models are not what the paper is developing. It is doing only this study: looking at how much extra growth there is as co2 goes up.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 25, 2015, 06:10:44 PM
Quote
Playing the man instead of the ball?
Information is information. It is never a valid argument against data by discussing who gave the data.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 25, 2015, 06:14:15 PM
I think that you have misinterpreted the paper. It doesn't say that crop yields are 50% lower with more co2.
It says "In those trials, elevated [CO 2 ] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies." To put it in math terms, let's say that nominal yield is Y and yield in "enclosure studies" is Y + dY. According to this statement, yield in the the paper's trial would then be Y + 0.5 * dY. The studies clearly show increase in yield with increased co2, as you can see in all of the graphs.
The authors go on to speculate about the magnitude of 0.5 * dY compared other effect in some models (not giving any details or analysis). Even that speculation doesn't say that yields with more co2 are 50% less than yields without more co2. It says things like " This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO 2 ] will fully offset losses due to climate change." It could still be an increase, it could be a decrease, it could be a wash. Also, it could be that the models are crap (like so many climate-related models because, as I wrote about before, complicated models that have 1 zillion adjustable parameters often have absolutely no predictive capability). But the models are not what the paper is developing. It is doing only this study: looking at how much extra growth there is as co2 goes up.
photosynthesis is limited by co2 availability when all other factors are maximized. As temperature increases, the pollutant O2 is more pronounced in interfering with the enzyme RuBisCo's ability to "get" CO2. :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 25, 2015, 06:16:48 PM
When CO2 was high the sun was a lot cooler. In fact models show that the earth could have been a block if ice if not for the CO2. (I can find references if needed - but you google right?)
As for Temp. Let me know what time frame you are thinking of. (I am running out of time again and I want to make sure that I am not wasting it on something that you and I agree on.)
None of that matters to what I was pointing out. I was pointing out (1) that the past of the earth had vastly higher co2 than we would have even if we burned all the oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground all at once and (2) that the earth had significantly higher temperatures than what anyone is forecasting as a result of co2 emissions. In case 1, 2, and 1 and 2, plants and animals on land and sea thrived.
So, whether you want to focus on higher co2 or higher temps, or both, my point is that it seems (given history) unlikely that it would endanger animal, plant, land, or sea life on earth.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on October 25, 2015, 06:20:46 PM
photosynthesis is limited by co2 availability when all other factors are maximized. As temperature increases, the pollutant O2 is more pronounced in interfering with the enzyme RuBisCo's ability to "get" CO2. :old:
So are you saying that as co2 increases in the atmosphere from where we today (say from 400 ppm to 600 ppm), crop yields will go down?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Zimme83 on October 25, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Distant in this case means more than a few hundred years from now, but when it comes to geology a few hundred years is nothing.
Saw an article that suggested that it is the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn that cause ice ages on earth (they pull us slightly farther from the sun) and that next such event will occur in about 2000 years. Might not be correct but nevertheless is the margin of error very big when predicting a new ice age, at least a few hundred years.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 25, 2015, 07:45:18 PM
None of that matters to what I was pointing out. I was pointing out (1) that the past of the earth had vastly higher co2 than we would have even if we burned all the oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground all at once and (2) that the earth had significantly higher temperatures than what anyone is forecasting as a result of co2 emissions. In case 1, 2, and 1 and 2, plants and animals on land and sea thrived.
So, whether you want to focus on higher co2 or higher temps, or both, my point is that it seems (given history) unlikely that it would endanger animal, plant, land, or sea life on earth.
Off the top of my head (plus review of vid below), and an almost complete bottle of wine, (Francis Coppola. 2013 Claret about $10 or $15 – very good value for money), here’s what I can say.
Yes 400 million years ago C02 levels were high (1,000 – 2,000 ppm). As I said, even at these levels the earth almost turned into a block of ICE. If you think about it, though, the earth was a LOT DIFFERENT back then.
But let’s just move on.
I’ll tell you what, take care of these issues for me and I’ll be OK with most of what you have to say about not worrying about high C02 levels.
1) Please cool down the effect of the sun for us. I guess you can hose it down or perhaps push out the earth’s orbit a bit. (I might have an HP 41cv to help you out to figure out how far the orbit will have to go. BTW, you will have to supply the batteries)
2) Push the continents back together. You know, reverse all of that tectonic stuff.
3) Once #2 is done, hammer all of the mountains down flat. I know that this sounds tough but my thoughts are that if you pulled off #2 this shouldn’t be that hard.
4) You got to kill off a bunch of plants. Unfortunately I don’t have a list right now. But I might be able to work out a punch down list by the time you get to this task.
5) Kill off a lot of the animals. (See #4 for issues with list)
6) TBD (
I think that I already posted below before. Real short. Informative;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkGoCglp_U UQx DENIAL101x 4.2.4.1 Ancient CO2 levels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkGoCglp_U
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 25, 2015, 07:54:27 PM
So are you saying that as co2 increases in the atmosphere from where we today (say from 400 ppm to 600 ppm), crop yields will go down?
no, more CO2 would result in more photosynthesis. the amount you describe sounds minuscule considering the 20% oxygen concentration is what interferes with rubiscos ability to function at a high rate (temperature).
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 26, 2015, 07:18:23 AM
This morning, I grabbed a cup of coffee and said to myself ‘OK, go re-read it and figure out what is going on’. Well I did, and yep, you are right. I misread it.
So I while I was getting ready to eat crow, (which I often do), I went back to a number of science blogs and web sites to try to figure out why I picked up the impression that I did. (That higher CO2 does not mean higher crop yield/food supply). And that was when I had a bit of an eureka moment.
I think that if I have learned anything about climate change discussion, it’s that not too infrequently when you think you got a handle on something, you find out that you have not even scratched the surface.
You are right. I misread the paper. However science still says that higher CO2 levels are going to be a real problem. I just understood the issue in overly simple terms.
Your comment resulted in my getter much better understanding of the issue. Thanks. (I mean it). (Learning is not losing).
I will post something soon.
In the mean time I found a finished unposted piece for you.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 26, 2015, 07:39:51 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/oBv5DQW.jpg)
Global Warming..... Not even once.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 26, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
A typical forest fire can look like that in a few hours. Impressive indeed. When coals strart falling from the sky the next morning I was a bit nervous. :bolt:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Devil 505 on October 26, 2015, 05:23:35 PM
There are a number of ideas as to what this all might mean. Far from being a reassuring phenomenon it actually could be a sign of real trouble ahead. See links below.
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2015/03/east-antarctica-melting-could-be-explained-by-oceanic-gateways (http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2015/03/east-antarctica-melting-could-be-explained-by-oceanic-gateways) Not very reassuring or calming is it?
In summary:
• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate • Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean • Currently there are significant observational differences between East and West Antarctic.
Actually, the hysteria over Totten IS a good example, just not in ways some of the warmists might like.
It all started with a desire to "find the lost heat". The hypothesis is that, since we can't show an area decrease in surface ice, then there must be a thickness decrease - and the more widespread the better - to account for heat absorption to the environment. Enter the Totten study, which has been actually able to find isolated local glacial melting of the totten glacier.
Now, the cause of the Totten melting is still uncertain, and, despite repeated attempts to get a map of their area of observation, likely localized... but, nonetheless, I've already heard claims that the whole Eastern Ice sheet could "go unstable" and that Totten itself, when it fails, will raise sea levels by 11 ft!!!!!
Whew! Better buy some inland Georgia property. It's about to be the new beach front.
NO. The postulation about under-shelf currents causing the local melting are not proven. It could well be subterranean geothermal activity. The evidence, meanwhile, that the Antarctic eastern ice sheet is jeopardized are gross exaggerations.
My recommendation to Australia and Austin, TX is that they go apply for funding ( a certainty) for a follow-on study to ascertain the extent and cause of the Totten local issue. You could also do a corollary study on whether or not the Totten local melting was being replaced/diminished/increased by snowfall in the catchment basin or not (another unknown that was very quickly put to self-serving speculation). That's what a scientist would do.
Meanwhile, about that property... it COULD be really prescient to buy property in Southeast Georgia. It MAY end up really valuable some day.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on October 27, 2015, 03:18:04 PM
BTW, I'll save you my usual - the trap, that is. Why? Because I only do that when i'm looking to discredit someone. This is a friendly discussion.
So, why did I state that the cause of the local Totten melting was not established? Was I in denial?
No.
Here's a quote from a UC Irvine geo guy who is studying the Totten phenomenon: "Until we have oceanographic data, showing that there is indeed warm water coming in that way, it remains a hypothesis," Rignot said.
Such data would include measurements of the salinity and temperature of the water in the area, which could show whether warm water is following the channel, or trough, at the base of the glacier, he said."
IE, causal link not established... and, let me further state, I think his hypothesis is poor, at best. You understand that they're postulating an AGW-rooted water channel in a location with known geothermal activity and implying that global warming is the cause for the melting (sneering italics mine)... You can stop wondering why people have developed a distrust right here, if it isn't apparent.
The worst part is that the grant money flowing from the stated concern is the primer for not only additional grant money but also for expanded political influence. My take: making a little money isn't a shameful thing. It's that second part - what I call "State Entrepreneurialism" that I find disturbing.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 27, 2015, 04:00:37 PM
The "state" finds it is always in the position to pick winners and losers based on "opinion" alone. The factor that the scientific rational the "state" is picking winners from is at this time only "opinion" matters not to the "state" or "states". The "opinion" supports what the "state" wants the outcome to be for themselves.
The scientists will keep producing that opinion and it's derivatives as long as they keep getting paid. Along with all the ancillary industries creating tools and equipment can also ply their trades and create new technology for the scientists to generate "opinions". And the "state" will help make their "opinions" mainstream by ignoring other "opinions" that do not support their goals. Many "states" have assumed a great deal of control over the lives of their citizens in a short period of time without a world war, by the canard of an emergency no one might see until 2100.
Between global warming and state interests in the outcomes of that research industry and the internet. The truth no longer matters for something that might happen by 2100.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on October 27, 2015, 04:30:22 PM
a scientist will speak his mind. always has, always will. some will be greedy but a scientist is just a scientist. The politicians will speak to maintain votes, spend money and make policy to justify his position. This global warming situation is scary because it is a runaway train when politicians are acting as scientists. A true scientist will admit the shortcomings of their knowledge, and hopefully refrain from causing undue harm to people. although some scientists would like to see most humans go extinct to save a tree. A middle road should be found, and I would guess it will be found, and is being found. most likely a result of free world wealth and rights mixed with public regulation and education.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on October 27, 2015, 05:20:28 PM
I like surfing this website treehugger.com, it's fun they bring up all kind of environmental friendly inventions and products but many are sick and useless. Today this off the grid (off pipe) toilet was presented, looks like a regular one hooked to an oven with transparent door, so we can watch not to overcook our baked alaska. It's time to bring composting toilets home" (http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2015/10/P1050881.jpg.480x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on October 28, 2015, 04:58:02 PM
And global warming reduction is so altruistic of an endeavor by governments and companies. It is about picking winners and losers. The opinions of scientists in accord with governments are noise to hide the actions of governments taking advantage of the opinions they like. And companies make a profit by leveraging the government rigged markets.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 31, 2015, 03:06:47 PM
(Here is Take Two).
Higher CO2 Impact on Crops
Short Version.
CO2 is Plant Food, More Is Good. Climate change denialists and/or skeptics say that an increase in CO2 levels is not a bad thing. For example they point out that CO2 is plant food and that if CO2 levels rise that increase will result in an increase in crop yields.
There is actually evidence for this point of view. Indoor greenhouse laboratory experiments have for decades shown that an increase in CO2 does it fact result in an increased crop yield. While results show a very wide range of results based on numerous factors, an increase of CO2 levels by ~ 200ppm (the CO2 value used by experiments varies) on average can result in about a 25% increase in crop yields. There are other benefits from higher CO2 levels including more efficient water usage by plants. Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2859.full (http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2859.full)
These factors, plus the ability of agro business to develop GMO plants for any eventuality, will mean that rising CO2 levels are nothing to be concerned about, and in fact, some go on to say that if CO2 levels were to rise then that would be a welcome development.
Increasing CO2 Will Increase Global Food Insecurity Climate Change Believers say this view of increasing CO2 levels is overly simplistic, very misleading and ultimately dangerous. Rises in CO2 levels, in addition to many other negative impacts, will bring about a sustained period of global food insecurity.
They first point out that even without Climate Change, the world needs about a 1% annual increase in rice crops just to meet current population growth.
Then they point out that the indoor greenhouse laboratory experiments, while conducted appropriately, are not realistic and that the data from open air experiments with increased CO2 indicate troubling findings. Open air experiments, for example, while showing a very wide range of results based on numerous factors, point out that real world data shows the expected increases in crop yields are about 50% too high. In other words, instead of a 25% increase in crop yields, the most one could expect if you only controlled for CO2 would be 12.5%.
Food for Thought: Lower-Than Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Long_2006.pdf (https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Long_2006.pdf)
Other issues include:
• Certain crops grown with increased CO2 levels are less nutritious. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract)
• In some cases, where some plants exhibit promising bursts of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects are brief and short lived. Plants Won’t Help Fight Global Warming As Much As We’d Thought; A long-running experiment has found that more carbon dioxide does not necessarily mean more plant growth http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/plants-wont-help-fight-global-warming-as-much-as-wed-thought-57646253/?no-ist= (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/plants-wont-help-fight-global-warming-as-much-as-wed-thought-57646253/?no-ist=)
• The projections in possible crop yields do not account for the wide range of results based on simple factors. Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168192386900547 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168192386900547)
• Related to this is that there will be severe challenges as current bread baskets degenerate (one case being the USA corn belt) while currently seasonally limited areas will see a vast improvement for crop growth (one case being the area of the former USSR). Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607.short (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607.short)
• With rising CO2 levels we will see rising temperatures and that on balance we will see a collection of plants requiring more water to grow than now. Maintenance of Leaf Temperature and the Optimisation of Carbon Gain in Relation to Water Loss in a Tropical Mangrove Forest http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9880263.htm (http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9880263.htm) A general relationship between CO2-induced reductions in stomatal conductance and concomitant increases in foliage temperature http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009884729390047J (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009884729390047J)
• Also rising temperatures would favor the growth of the pest population. Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm) Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects http://www.life.illinois.edu/delucia/PUBLICATIONS/April%202008%20pub.pdf (http://www.life.illinois.edu/delucia/PUBLICATIONS/April%202008%20pub.pdf)
There are many more issues that that come about with higher CO2 levels, (i.e. ozone issues), but I think that the above shows some of the concerns because of Climate Change.
What could all of this mean as far as say the pentagon is concerned?
DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710 (http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710)
The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk; The leaders of our armed forces know what's coming next - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212)
Long Version. Argh….. above should do it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 31, 2015, 03:19:33 PM
That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.
I'm also encouraged that NASA finally figured out that while they put a man on the moon in the 60's they were unable to accurately measure temperatures on Earth. Those mistakes have been corrected and have eliminated the cooling trend that had climatologists worried about global cooling in the 70's.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 31, 2015, 03:25:57 PM
That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.
I guess that that is why the CIA just stopped providing climate data to scientists. :headscratch: The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program)
I'm also encouraged that NASA finally figured out that while they put a man on the moon in the 60's they were unable to accurately measure temperatures on Earth. Those mistakes have been corrected and have eliminated the cooling trend that had climatologists worried about global cooling in the 70's.
"Global cooling" in the 1970s was Time and Newsweek trying to sell copy. I guess they got you to pick up a copy.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 31, 2015, 04:10:29 PM
I guess that that is why the CIA just stopped providing climate data to scientists. :headscratch: The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program)
"Global cooling" in the 1970s was Time and Newsweek trying to sell copy. I guess they got you to pick up a copy.
The CIA is not military. According to the link they stopped because they finished the study.
If you look at NASA temp graphs from the 70's they show the cooling.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on October 31, 2015, 04:50:46 PM
The CIA is not military. According to the link they stopped because they finished the study.
If you look at NASA temp graphs from the 70's they show the cooling.
That is right I forgot!; The CIA does not have to do what POTUS says. How silly of me.
The CIA's 'official' reason was that the funding period had come to an end. The original link contained a little bit of info behind the real reason. In short the CIA didn't want to put up with the hassle that it was causing with its overall budgeting process .
It does looks as if the Pentagon can fill in the gaps for now.
The data that scientists are using today to study climate change goes back millions of years. Not the case in the 70s. The following vid does a good job in explaining the issue. (Caution the following has not been approved by FoxNews for general viewing.)
Qx DENIAL101x 4.4.4.1 Climate science in the 1970s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6bq0l18Ng
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on October 31, 2015, 10:36:57 PM
The military culture of obedience to the potus is significantly different from the CIA's culture. In any case your link was irrelevant.
What does "millions of years" have to do with measuring temperature in the 60's and 70's. You just read the thermometer, wrote down the numbers, then 50 years later somebody changed them.
You post a lot of speculation but I lack the inexperience to be convinced by it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: RTR on November 01, 2015, 01:40:06 AM
The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops. Nope sorry, if its too warm for ice in the polar regions it will eventually be to arid to grow crops in the south. Quit whining, cope. Neanderthals coped better than the radical climate changers, makes ya wonder if a big die-off of whiny government-dependent progressives unable to cope with natural global heating and cooling cycles might be a good thing. Neanderthals adapted to their climate, but so did Cromagnon, and ergo us..coping has no bearing on significant change in short term.
PS: The last time it was dramatically warmer on earth, when they were growing crops on Greenland, the polar bears did just fine. No...just no. As someone who has a little more up close and personal knowledge of Polar Bears I can assure you that their numbers are declining. They need pack ice to hunt. Polar Bears that summer in the north are on a minimal ration diet, They need to eat seals and small whales to survive. They only get access to that kind of food source when the ice is "in"...stop hunting them, they are having a hard enough time as is. Try facts and geologic record Yes! for all! instead of emotional blabbering Yes...look in the mirror. if you want some ideas about what to do when things warm up a bit. And maybe keep a spare jacket handy for the next cold cycle.
Lastly don't confuse sea ice in the south with continental ice...two different things. Warmer climates in the north and mid areas will bring larger sea ice in the south...not sure why most don't understand this. Snow in Minnesota doesn't mean global cooling.
Rant Off.
RTR
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on November 01, 2015, 06:17:21 AM
"Germany is about to start up a monster machine that could revolutionize the way we use energy" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-start-monster-machine-could-152111129.html
2. I'm part of the consensus ( temp has changed slightly and humans have some minor effect, eg heat islands), even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases.
The IPPC says what now???
You say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
This is how most climatologists see it:
• Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time • Yes – Gore got it wrong. At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years. He is right 90% of the time (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports) • Ye…. What? Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????
If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time. Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.
The other 90% of the time C02 leads temperature increases.
The chart below shows just that. Most of the time CO2 leads temperature.
(http://i.imgur.com/wQmiZ5m.jpg)
And in fact: “CO2 lags temperature changes in the last million years of temperature history”
So if anyone asks you the question: Does CO2 lag temperature increases or does CO2 lead temperature increases? Well, the answer is YES to both.
• CO2 lags temperature increases, the reasons are complex • CO2 leads temperature increases, the reasons are complex
You could say: CO2 leads/lags temperature increase which feeds temperature as it increases C02 levels. And it really does not matter who is on first, who is who at what levels, what the lag periods are between a push to increase of either CO2 or temperature factors and how much either is actually getting amplified by. You can see changes in the rate or speed of increases, but generally the trend has also been in one direction. Up.
Well that is clear as mud. And I am sure that you are glad as heck that I cleared that up for you.
The main influencer is the Milankovitch cycle. That is take into account:
1. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) 2. The earth's axis is as to the sun at around 23 (obliquity) 3. The earth wobbling spin around its axis (precession)
The net effects of these cycles are long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm (BTW that was first up on Google. This is very widely accepted.)
Or see below (a better piece IMO): FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era? Here: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
That CO2 could and probably was lagging was understood in 1990.
Claude Lorius predicted in a 1990 paper: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming that CO2 can lag and that it amplifies temperature.
"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing. ... The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.”
It is really puzzling to me when you say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
(Are you perhaps reading some IPPC paper that is talking about a period of time when CO2 does lead and assuming that that is their position?)
(Again, if I am wrong show me your source. I would really be interested).
In 2001 (TAR) the IPCC said:
Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell,1997).
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chapter 3: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Section 3.3.2 Variations in Atmospheric CO2 during Glacial/interglacial Cycles [Page 203] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf
In 2007 (ar4) the IPCC said:
“Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.”
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Page 112] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
In earth's past, CO2 rise lagged temperature, so CO2 can't possibly cause global warming? This is like saying "'I saw a chicken lay an egg. That proves chickens don't come from eggs.'" — Dr. Richard Alley
UQx DENIAL101x Full interview with William Ruddiman
Just to repeat, if anything is wrong here it is probably me and not my sources. If I am wrong about the IPPC please provide the reference, I would be interested.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: earl1937 on November 01, 2015, 10:52:00 AM
You say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
This is how most climatologists see it:
• Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time • Yes – Gore got it wrong. At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years. He is right 90% of the time (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports) • Ye…. What? Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????
If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time. Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.
The other 90% of the time C02 leads temperature increases.
The chart below shows just that. Most of the time CO2 leads temperature.
(http://i.imgur.com/wQmiZ5m.jpg)
And in fact: “CO2 lags temperature changes in the last million years of temperature history”
So if anyone asks you the question: Does CO2 lag temperature increases or does CO2 lead temperature increases? Well, the answer is YES to both.
• CO2 lags temperature increases, the reasons are complex • CO2 leads temperature increases, the reasons are complex
You could say: CO2 leads/lags temperature increase which feeds temperature as it increases C02 levels. And it really does not matter who is on first, who is who at what levels, what the lag periods are between a push to increase of either CO2 or temperature factors and how much either is actually getting amplified by. You can see changes in the rate or speed of increases, but generally the trend has also been in one direction. Up.
Well that is clear as mud. And I am sure that you are glad as heck that I cleared that up for you.
The main influencer is the Milankovitch cycle. That is take into account:
1. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) 2. The earth's axis is as to the sun at around 23 (obliquity) 3. The earth wobbling spin around its axis (precession)
The net effects of these cycles are long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm (BTW that was first up on Google. This is very widely accepted.)
Or see below (a better piece IMO): FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era? Here: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
That CO2 could and probably was lagging was understood in 1990.
Claude Lorius predicted in a 1990 paper: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming that CO2 can lag and that it amplifies temperature.
"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing. ... The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.”
It is really puzzling to me when you say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
(Are you perhaps reading some IPPC paper that is talking about a period of time when CO2 does lead and assuming that that is their position?)
(Again, if I am wrong show me your source. I would really be interested).
In 2001 (TAR) the IPCC said:
Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell,1997).
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chapter 3: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Section 3.3.2 Variations in Atmospheric CO2 during Glacial/interglacial Cycles [Page 203] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf
In 2007 (ar4) the IPCC said:
“Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.”
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Page 112] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
In earth's past, CO2 rise lagged temperature, so CO2 can't possibly cause global warming? This is like saying "'I saw a chicken lay an egg. That proves chickens don't come from eggs.'" — Dr. Richard Alley
UQx DENIAL101x Full interview with William Ruddiman
Just to repeat, if anything is wrong here it is probably me and not my sources. If I am wrong about the IPPC please provide the reference, I would be interested.
:old: Who gives a "rats behind"! Just keep the Viagra factories going, if I have to go, let it be my choice, not some stupid nitwit politicians daydream!
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on November 01, 2015, 07:11:59 PM
This large sunspot AR2443 is moving towards the Earth side, sure won't help with global warming; X-class solar flare risk 15%,M- class 55%; http://www.solarham.net/
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 01, 2015, 07:25:28 PM
is there any website that predicts northern lights? me lady have never seen them and we have some nice clear weather the next few days. :salute
And you guys are whining, no real answers. I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years and not a soul had a comment about it. If someone claims they "know" something we get babel for two pages.... babel babel babel. might as well call climate change a religion, like "science", you must believe. :old:
:rofl
:airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Chris79 on November 01, 2015, 08:10:21 PM
is there any website that predicts northern lights? me lady have never seen them and we have some nice clear weather the next few days. :salute
And you guys are whining, no real answers. I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years and not a soul had a comment about it. If someone claims they "know" something we get babel for two pages.... babel babel babel. might as well call climate change a religion, like "science", you must believe. :old:
:rofl
:airplane:
Www.swpc.noaa.gov
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 02, 2015, 04:38:36 AM
I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years
I like the idea. I do not know what sort of trees would make the most sense. I would think that faster growing trees would work out better, but I do not know.
Forest management could yield big returns:
"Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants"
I would think that trying to stop things like clear cutting would be a big help. (The following could be dated)
"Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually. "
You say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
This is how most climatologists see it:
• Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time • Yes – Gore got it wrong. At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years. He is right 90% of the time (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports) • Ye…. What? Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????
If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time. Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.
Let's summarize, here, because this post rambles excessively and doesn't separate what's established from what's theoretical well at all.
CO2 increase lags temp increase. Temp increase drives additional CO2 increase.
Both of these points seem pretty well established.
That's where you got into sleight of hand.
The entire remaining argument is over the stability of the system and the impact of Co2 as a feedback driver. That's the part that isn't established, leaving you with a lot of linked conjecture. The minute you can establish that Co2 feedback drives the earth into climate instability (and givne the magnitude of some of the historical releases of Co2 due to natural occurrences, I'd call laugh test on this to beign), well, at that point, probably the IPCC models will be predictive and will correlate.
So far, though - no dice.
See, to beleive that high Co2 levels will drive huge temp swings ignores the record itself and the fact that we're in a bit of a CO2 dearth: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Another problem: the IPCC assumption is that Humans are the primary drivers of CO2 emissions. Not so fast: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
But what about the central crux of the theory? CO2 as overriding feedback? Perhaps most damning, former IPCC'er Bengtsson: impact of Co2 on feedback forcing is logarithmic - ie, orders of magnitude required as concentrations go up... Nope - root and branch, a lousy theory: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/vi-skapar-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 02, 2015, 05:23:10 AM
No let me summarize. You stated that the IPPC says that CO2 leads temp.
I believe you are mistaken.
I provided IPPC quotes to show that.
So are you willing to "theoretically" change your position?
If I am wrong, please provide me with an IPPC reference that proves your point.
I stand by my original statement. This is one of the items addressed by the British court - who demanded a clarification.
Now, I've further developed the feedback argument and you're, instead trying to focus on my very brief original statement as a means to what, exactly?
Understand, I pulled a punch on Totten because this is a friendly discussion. Don't try to divert it.
I've further developed here the problem with the entire feedback argument - and you've chosen to focus on the initial statement, which is both correct in a strict sense and was originally misrepresented by Gore.
So let's summarize, if this helps.
1. I stated that Gore was mistaken in his original representation, and the British Court agrees. 2. CO2 as a driver for further temp increase is conjecture, on both your part and those you cite. As I developed in that last post, Professor Bengtsson, who defected from the IPCC camp, doubtless mindful of not wanting to be associated with scientific malpractice, calls it a weak feedback at best in his latest paper (and I can cite multiple additional - whereas you can cite conjecture and feedback forcing theories that have never panned out as predictive in IPCC models - that correlation thing is still a problem for you guys). Consider water vapor and Ammonia - those are real greenhouse gase. 3. If that weak feedback makes you "feel" correct in stating that feedback effects from CO2 are leading to warming, then you can take that ball and run with it - but this would be highly intellectually dishonest, because your camp is claiming that it is a driver that overrides the primary forcing you've cited - and none such fact has been established.
In short, you may have cleared a technical hurdle without it being materially supportive of your overall position. In short, your point is diversionary of the undercutting of the entire thesis, which I provided, and is an understandable act, given that focusing on the central issue, the feedback impact of CO2, is inconvenient to your case.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 02, 2015, 08:57:45 AM
Cottonwood species grow very fast especially geneticly selected varietys. It is crucial that the crop is harvested. Cottonwood would mostlikey be a paper product. Of course any wood could be buried. Pine has been good for building. Oaks and maple are very nice and make a good mature forest. I guess the key is management. Not letting it grow wild but good management to a end. 30 year harvest of cottonwood/poplar would yield the most bang for buck to sequester co2 and develop paper products and some building board.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 02, 2015, 10:30:23 AM
Additionally, looks like I was right about the ridiculous Antarctic ice sheet fears. The Totten issue appears to be very local, doubtless due to geothermal activity: Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071;jsessionid=pi1c23u2cqo4.alexandra (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071;jsessionid=pi1c23u2cqo4.alexandra)
But i'm sure that won't stop the UN from beginning their plan to start persec... er, "prosecuting" "deniers"... haaaaw, haaaw, haaaw.
Nice try, Sys... Keep on trying to "win" by dint of deluge. It's a pity you don't have a better position staked out. If you did, because of your persistence, you'd probably be unassailable. Otherwise, here's to you and tilting at windmills. :cheers:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 02, 2015, 01:00:46 PM
PJ,
Read this and marvel at man made global warming and all those lofty CO2 targets scientists in the west want to impose. How do governments impose their will on others? Remember, you cannot impose peace on another. Just fear of your ability to do harm for non compliance. This is the dirty side of global warming the scientists ignore but, are handing to the politicians on a sliver platter based on "computer models" guessing the future. Man Made Moral authority to impose upon others.
Read this and marvel at man made global warming and all those lofty CO2 targets scientists in the west want to impose. How do governments impose their will on others? Remember, you cannot impose peace on another. Just fear of your ability to do harm for non compliance. This is the dirty side of global warming the scientists ignore but, are handing to the politicians on a sliver platter based on "computer models" guessing the future. Man Made Moral authority to impose upon others.
The best observation from this article, and probably the most likely to happen:
The tragedy of current efforts to combat global warming is that in order to avert a tragedy they'll cause one.
Actually, I read that article when it came out last week, but is yet another reason why I'm about to build a Bustr shrine right next to my Virtual Flight Arena.
The critical insight identified in your post here, imj: from moral authority comes political authority. The simple goal of the far-fetched IPCC CO2 feedback theory and the models based on same was to create a moral imperative, and thus a political imperative, for redistribution.
However, a crazy thing happened on the way to konzentrazionslager Earth. It is noted in the article you cite. While carbon rationing would definitely impact productive economies and funnel transfer payments to nonproductive ones, it would also lead to crib death for the emerging productive ones.
I worry less about this - for we know that the ultimate consequence of egalitarian redistribution is always the same: misery for all. Your author was prescient enough to understand that all means her and her nation too.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 02, 2015, 01:33:21 PM
PJ,
This article probably sums up why the USA, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with Sys and his brethren. Is treated like a low IQ mass murderer and unfit for polite company. The USA and even the EU would have to regress back to the total use of horse and buggy technology over the next decade to meet the emotional goals for global warming put forth by this author. She seems to capture the feelings of the movement from around the world. It's the USA's fault, and the USA needs to go back to living in grass huts to pay for it's crimes against humanity and the environment.
While the USA is destroying the world, a Suadi dairy farm company who runs dairy farms in the Arabian desert, just purchased land in Arizona to grow alfalfa. I guess during the California drought going on for the last 4 years. The imperial valley farmers are charging the Saudis too much for the California alfalfa irrigated by Colorado River water they ship to the middle east and China.
http://www.arabnews.com/news/537336
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 02, 2015, 02:24:06 PM
This article probably sums up why the USA, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with Sys and his brethren. Is treated like a low IQ mass murderer and unfit for polite company. The USA and even the EU would have to regress back to the total use of horse and buggy technology over the next decade to meet the emotional goals for global warming put forth by this author. She seems to capture the feelings of the movement from around the world. It's the USA's fault, and the USA needs to go back to living in grass huts to pay for it's crimes against humanity and the environment.
While the USA is destroying the world, a Suadi dairy farm company who runs dairy farms in the Arabian desert, just purchased land in Arizona to grow alfalfa. I guess during the California drought going on for the last 4 years. The imperial valley farmers are charging the Saudis too much for the California alfalfa irrigated by Colorado River water they ship to the middle east and China.
http://www.arabnews.com/news/537336
( The first article) Reminds me of those recent NARF ads -too hot for this forum, but essentially they state that the Indian wars aren't over.
Here's the thing: what was won with intrepid and fearless exploration and plenty of blood and treasure is about to be squandered bloodlessly to the greatest snake-oil salespeople since those who crafted a strategy for extracting wealth by means of a threat to your afterlife (no names named here, por supuesto).
Little Miss Narain probably needs a little corrective surgery from some of Curtis LeMay's finest, since she surely is an enemy to my freedom of action (though I'd stop short of such recommendation given that its just an op-ed piece). It's a pity that my government is not representing my interests (my opinion) in this matter.
She is of a piece with any number of other invasions corrosive to the Republic, all of which should be very grateful it is not me in charge. I'd give them something to cry about.
The West is at war, this last being a continuation of state policy by other means. In this case, though, the "other means" takes other forms - more than one of which are in play right now. I'm hopeful that people wake up and see it for what it is, one day. Otherwise, DeGrelle will be proven right, and that's both a pity for us and a vindication for him.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 02, 2015, 02:26:02 PM
I have called for a complete ban on living in the desert for years! Sure you can grow crops nearly pesticide free and possibly most of the year but at what expense? When they run out of water it is not our fault, forget your crops, and no I'm not shipping you more water. You know it is unsustainable so deal with it. PS I've got some land for sale.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 02, 2015, 02:46:49 PM
Rex as created by the Belgium journalist Leon DeGrelle in 1935?
The ideology of Rex, which was loosely based on the writings of Jean Denis, called for the "moral renewal" of Belgian society through dominance of the Catholic Church, by forming a corporatist society and abolishing liberal democracy. Denis became an enthusiastic member of Rex and later wrote for the party newspaper, Le Pays Réel. The original programme of Rexism borrowed strongly from Charles Maurras' integralism. It rejected liberalism which it deemed decadent and was strongly opposed to both Marxism and capitalism, instead striving for a corporatist economic model, idealising rural life and traditional family values.
Not to mention he was an SS-Standartenführer d. R. der Waffen-SS and leader of the Walloon contingent.
If so "Otherwise, DeGrelle will be proven right,". This is going the really long way around the Skuzzy Rule# hammer per religion and politics....... :O
We lost something with the Internet and the demise of "Men of Letters". Good imagery PJ.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 02, 2015, 05:02:42 PM
Rex as created by the Belgium journalist Leon DeGrelle in 1935?
The ideology of Rex, which was loosely based on the writings of Jean Denis, called for the "moral renewal" of Belgian society through dominance of the Catholic Church, by forming a corporatist society and abolishing liberal democracy. Denis became an enthusiastic member of Rex and later wrote for the party newspaper, Le Pays Réel. The original programme of Rexism borrowed strongly from Charles Maurras' integralism. It rejected liberalism which it deemed decadent and was strongly opposed to both Marxism and capitalism, instead striving for a corporatist economic model, idealising rural life and traditional family values.
Not to mention he was an SS-Standartenführer d. R. der Waffen-SS and leader of the Walloon contingent.
If so "Otherwise, DeGrelle will be proven right,". This is going the really long way around the Skuzzy Rule# hammer per religion and politics....... :O
We lost something with the Internet and the demise of "Men of Letters". Good imagery PJ.
I learned something here and thanks for that. No, though, my ref was to Degrelle's characterization of Stalingrad as the end of Western civ. If proven correct, we've shown a failure of moderation, imj ( shame on us as westerners) , since it would appear that there, indeed, was no survivable alternative to the path of all-out aggression. We only replaced that last with complete cultural and political obsequiousness.
Me, I believe our function, someone else's coinage but referring to those who have learned from history, is to stand athwart those tracks shouting halt! The cycle must be broken, and we're in the apathy-sujugation phase, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 02, 2015, 06:28:16 PM
PJ,
Here is the real agenda of the Paris 2015 climate summit. Climate justice and a world UN run court that can over ride the US Senate. India and China have been pushing this with the Third World nations which accounts for those two articles by writers out of India. Global warming will become a casualty of the new Third World order of climate justice reparations in the World Climate Justice court (wealth redistribution tribunal) at the UN. One way to let global warming slip out of the news cycle while initiating a new world crisis of Climate Justice. Those Third World nations will keep this one at the forefront because it means "Free Money" if they don the mantel of Climate Justice victims.
Both India and China refuse to stop building coal fired electrical plants or pay what it really will cost to build those plants so they don't shut down cities like in China and kill people from air pollution. So once again the USA is the bad boogy man denying the rest of the world their chance at creating an equivalent standard of living. And the purpose of the Climate Justice Court. Steal American wealth and give it directly to third world governments so they can leap from the late middle ages directly into the 21st Century. Or some nonsense like that. The EU won't get off lightly either. So no court, no justice, no accord, and India and China can keep killing the planet by building more power plants. Sounds just like how China helps manipulate the UN to get what it wants in other areas.
In this case no climate change treaty that they have to publicly say NO to on the record. Remember, for the USA to pay fines at that court, it would be with China's money.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on November 02, 2015, 07:11:16 PM
Cyclone Chapala hits Yemen; they never seen this kind of weather;
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 03, 2015, 01:37:48 AM
The Sahara is only recently a desert starting desertification around 10,000 years ago along with the middle east. Weather patterns changed during the Neolithic rapidly changing the regions from verdant grass lands to desert by the beginning of the bronze age. You might say that was the most recent global warming event over a large geographic region.
And then there was the Younger Dryas about 13,000 years ago which cooled most of the northern hemisphere 2-6C and increased the size of many of those glaciers the global warming cultists keep crying about. Along with growing the Arctic ice sheet. And it only took a few decades 13,000 years ago to grow those glaciers to the sizes bemoaned about in their heydays of a century ago.
Then 3000 years later the Sahara's and middle east's climate changed and turned a whole region into a gigantic desert. Since the end of the last Ice Age about 24,000-27,000 years ago there have been about 4 major climate heating and cooling events lasting about 200-400 years each. The Oldest Dryas, Older Dryas, Allerød oscillation, and the Younger Dryas.
The only thing this planet does that we can depend on is change climatic extremes on a regular basis very rapidly. Man Made Global warming is about redistribution of wealth, access to resources, and power over rapidly growing populations. The planet will change itself regardless of what we humans think we can do to stop it changing. Now it looks like it wants to turn the middle east back into a verdant grassland. Maybe.....
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 03, 2015, 02:03:54 AM
And then this, we have no control over the planet changing it's tilt or oscillations. So an event like that which happens from time to time will cause a rapid change in climate. But, the smart kids in the room know it's the fault of the USA and nothing will change their minds.
Why the Sahara Became a Desert Monday, February 7, 2011
How can a part of the world transform from a green area into a desert? It happened to the Sahara and scientists think this was due to a change in the tilt of the earth. Changes in the Earth's tilt happen from time to time and they change the weather. A change in our orbit could have done the same thing, and scientists say the earth's orbit continues to change and will continue to do so in the future.
Researchers all agree that this area changed into the world's biggest desert, but the question is: Was the path to change gradual or fast and HOW and WHY did it happen? NASA's Gavin Schmidt thinks the change happened quickly, 8,000 years ago, when the Earth's orbit changed from around 24.1 degrees to the 23.5 degrees, where it remains today. The Daily Galaxy quotes him as saying, "The end of the 'Green Sahara' came about quite suddenly around 5,500 years ago. Thus, a very slow change in the orbit (led) to an abrupt collapse in that ecosystem. The Earth had its closest approach to the Sun in the northern hemisphere (with) summer in August. Today, that closest approach is in January. So, summertime in the north was warmer back then than it is now."
Pierre Francus is an advocate of slow change. The Daily Galaxy quotes him as saying, "The findings of this study are that the sedimentological and geochemical properties of the lake sediments confirm that the Sahara has been drying slowly from six thousand years ago to reach the present day conditions around 1,100 years ago. The models that are used to predict future climate need to be tested, and using information from the past is one way to achieve this goal." ------------------------------------------------------------
I guess old Pierre is validating that the planet changes itself on a regular basis no matter what we do to it.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 03, 2015, 06:28:02 AM
Cottonwood species grow very fast especially geneticly selected varietys. It is crucial that the crop is harvested. Cottonwood would mostlikey be a paper product. Of course any wood could be buried. Pine has been good for building. Oaks and maple are very nice and make a good mature forest. I guess the key is management. Not letting it grow wild but good management to a end. 30 year harvest of cottonwood/poplar would yield the most bang for buck to sequester co2 and develop paper products and some building board.
Your comment about cottonwoods has gotten me thinking. I have been trying to look up references on the impact of trees on the carbon cycle. I can see where their impacts have been put into models, but I have not found anything on how that impact is calculated. I have found a number of references on Carbon Capture and Sequestration/Storage (CCS), but they are mostly focusing on the application of technologies within production or consumption systems.
I found the following general information on cottonwoods: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/cottonwood/cottonwood-tree-in-landscapes.htm
Overall they seem as if they may be fit for purpose. (That is at least in the regions where they grow).
Anyway I am pressed for time this week, but I will look for more information on my mobile when I can. I’ll post when I can.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 03, 2015, 06:33:17 AM
Your comment about cottonwoods has gotten me thinking. I have been trying to look up references on the impact of trees on the carbon cycle. I can see where their impacts have been put into models, but I have not found anything on how that impact is calculated. I have found a number of references on Carbon Capture and Sequestration/Storage (CCS), but they are mostly focusing on the application of technologies within production or consumption systems.
I found the following general information on cottonwoods: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/cottonwood/cottonwood-tree-in-landscapes.htm
Overall they seem as if they may be fit for purpose. (That is at least in the regions where they grow).
Anyway I am pressed for time this week, but I will look for more information on my mobile when I can. I’ll post when I can.
cottonwood or eastern cottonwood i believe, is a vile weed tree that grows everywhere around my neck off the woods. out west there is a lot of work being done with poplars, in a high altitude environment aspen seems to grow well. these trees are in the same family and all grow fast and have short lives. thus great for farming or co2 capture.
I ask again, for the third time, please provide your proof on what you believe the IPCC has gotten wrong.
You say: “…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”
I have provided citations that refute your claim. If I am wrong, I would like to know.
If you cannot show your source(s), admit that you are mistaken and concede the point.
I'll make you happy. My lumping of Gore and IPCC together misrepresents IPCC. On this matter I stand corrected. In fact, the IPCC position is well-covered here.
Gore, however, WAS corrected by the British Court in his assertion that the CO2 and Temp traces were "an exact fit".
So, that out of the way, your case is till an utter shambles. After all, Bengtsson acknowledges feedback forcing is weak, at best, and your assertions on Totten were hopeful but sadly inaccurate extrapolations and Antarctic ice is increasing, yet you focus on this flyspeck..?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Peanut1 on November 03, 2015, 05:09:22 PM
There are better ways. However, we live in a place that the cheapest way goes for.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 03, 2015, 05:13:48 PM
if we could get that 5$/Gallon gas again electric cars and trains will sound really cool again. :bolt:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 03, 2015, 06:56:14 PM
Japan doesn't run around banging the global warming gong and trying to force the world to believe or else. But, they have a lot at stake "if" there is any possibility.
Tokyo
Based on a study of the land mass, population and assets at risk as indicators, the impact of sea level rise was evaluated. Using different water levels - mean water, high water, high tide, and storm surge/tsunami - it was discovered that even at normal conditions, more than 861 sq.km. is below mean high water level. There are two million people who live in this zone, with 54 trillion yen assets.
If the sea level rises by 1 m, this zone will expand to 2,340 sq.km or 2.7 times larger. The affected population will be 4.1 million, and assets will be 109 trillion yen. Moreover, the flood prone area, which is currently 6,270 sq.km. will expand to 8,900 sq.km. if the sea-level rises 1 m. More than 15 million may be endangered.
Scientists are a useful side show while governments control the money and power. Japan is not taking the sky is falling approach like the west is to stir up the masses and keep them from using critical thinking about the whole process. Japan has a problem with high tides and storm surges during normal times in Tokyo. Their existing system of canals and storm gates would be overwhelmed and a portion of Tokyo permanently flooded "if" any of the predictions and time frame are marginally true. If their government actually believed on the level our friend Sys charts GW doom by 2100, from the best and brightest of Japanese researchers findings, Japan wouldn't sit still quietly waiting to loose 109 trillion yen forever.
There are too many variables and outcome manipulated computer programs for any government in Japan's position to believe the scientists who manipulated the programs. To date Japan has not started building a 100ft deep and 100ft high sea wall in Tokyo harbor to protect that part of Tokyo from flooding. I trust the Japanese would if they believed Al Gore.....
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: MrKrabs on November 03, 2015, 07:36:41 PM
What if we simply not let Rosie O'donnell near the beach anymore? Should take care of sea levels right?
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 03, 2015, 07:47:04 PM
I'll make you happy. My lumping of Gore and IPCC together misrepresents IPCC. On this matter I stand corrected. In fact, the IPCC position is well-covered here.
Just a short while ago Brooke spotted an error that I had made in reading/processing a point. Arghh… But as I stated then and still believe, I am glad that he pointed it out to me. I corrected a misconception that I had and learned something. Culturally, where people view arguments as a type of war, I would have seemed to have “lost” while Brooke would be seen as “winning”. But I am the one that gained something (corrected information) and Brooke, besides perhaps experiencing a momentary smile, does not get anything out of the exchange. (Assuming that he did not have to conduct a bunch of research to make his point). There are those on this BBS who never concede a point. I think that you lose when that is all you do. I really hope that everyone takes the time to watch that TED talk link I posted on this topic.
On the topic of Al Gore and the CO2 lead/lag Temp issue, I provided what I think is the best defense that one can come with. But at the end of the day it is what it is. Again, he should have had a thorough review process even though he was not producing a scientific paper.
As to where to go next. I have a post ready on your What’s Up With That guys. Just need a final re-read then I can post.
I have gotten into the RSS issue. I can stop and go the Bengtsson/Totten route, but I am finding that satellite issue very interesting. (Your call here, in the end I do mind either way).
Just FYI, I am as busy as a one arm wall paper hanger these days. There may be lags in my posts.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 04, 2015, 01:24:20 PM
Just a short while ago Brooke spotted an error that I had made in reading/processing a point. Arghh… But as I stated then and still believe, I am glad that he pointed it out to me. I corrected a misconception that I had and learned something. Culturally, where people view arguments as a type of war, I would have seemed to have “lost” while Brooke would be seen as “winning”. But I am the one that gained something (corrected information) and Brooke, besides perhaps experiencing a momentary smile, does not get anything out of the exchange. (Assuming that he did not have to conduct a bunch of research to make his point). There are those on this BBS who never concede a point. I think that you lose when that is all you do. I really hope that everyone takes the time to watch that TED talk link I posted on this topic.
Fully agreed here. I've been wrong before and will be again (and am aware of it) and you have actually enhanced my thinking. After all, i used to lump the AIT position together with the IPCC position and that doesn't look as carefully considered as my evolved understanding based on your critique.
Anyway, take your time. This topic will be here for a while. It has legs.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on November 04, 2015, 02:17:37 PM
Perhaps the next 20 years will show a trend that reasonable people will agree on.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 04, 2015, 03:02:18 PM
The qualifier is critical.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on November 04, 2015, 03:33:59 PM
I thought it was reasonable.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Tumor on November 04, 2015, 03:45:29 PM
When Mother Earth decides to either Fry us off, or Freeze us off.... she will. And there isn't damnit we can do about it... except maybe go somewhere else, like, in 2 or 3 centuries, maybe.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on November 04, 2015, 05:03:12 PM
Once there is a couple hundred years of uncorrected data, no manipulation of the numbers, just the actual numbers,, then I'll pay attention,, or some of my offspring maybe.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 04, 2015, 06:32:51 PM
problem is our approximately average of 30 years of postpubescence experience on earth feels everything should stay the same, plant crops, first frost, christmas, yadda yadda. then throw in some education about pollution. ultimately a fear of self induced destruction is in all of us. then the cry of the sky is falling gets started and everyone runs around scared, they believe the sky is falling! just look at the storms they are huge! turn on the news and feed your fear, its a positive feedback loop of self gratifying hate mixed with self gratifying love of hate. Just look at the drought they are huge! I ask what is normal? is it normal if a bacteria farts? what if they all fart? What if all bacteria farting becomes the new normal? Well as a scientist I must say we should stop bacteria farts, because i know they are responsible for this awful smell. This smell is so bad i can not smell grandmas apple pie, and darnit i like grandmas apple pie, my great great grand kids are going to smell my grandmas apple pie if I can help it. now you listen here bacteria your not going to fart anymore or I will kill you. the buck stops here. and if you bacteria know whats good for you, you to will stop farting. no more farting! so what if your stomach hurts, you should of not ate anything, did you not pay attention is class you jackwaggon. now im going to go eat some pie. I eat responsibly and and you should to, just no more farting or the pie will not taste as good. good day sir. :salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 04, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
Much of the main stream media is helping to keep information counter to GW out of the public conversation.
In early 2011, Gavin Atkins asked: “What happened to the climate refugees?” In his Asian Correspondent post, he used census records to show that the populations in the low-lying areas predicted to “flee a range of disasters including sea level rise” had actually grown—including no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China.
Based on both in-person observation and historic evidence from Western Europe, Endlich has made a study of sea level rise. Citing geological features such as stream meanders upstream of Pisa on the Arno River and new shorelines on the coast of the Ligurian Sea, and history, he told me:
What may be news to many is that there is widespread evidence in the Mediterranean Basin and the English Channel coast that sea levels in Roman and Medieval periods were significantly higher than at present. The Roman port of Ostia Antica, the port at Ephesus, now in Turkey, and Pisa have histories showing the Mediterranean Seas significantly higher than today’s sea levels.
Endlich continued:
In 1066, William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is when William landed, he first occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor on England’s south coast. A drawbridge connected castle to mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown out this ‘Sea Gate,’ so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast—further proof of higher sea levels fewer than 1000 years ago.
The glacial-interglacial temperature data from the past 400,000 years shows each of the previous four interglacials significantly warmer than at present. In fact, a careful analysis of the ice cores from East Antarctica, published as a letter in Nature, shows that maximum temperatures from previous interglacials were at least 6C/10F warmer than present-day temperatures, with CO2 values then about 280 PPM, and today’s values near 400 PPM. Leaving one to ask: “if CO2 is such a strong cause of warming, why is it so cold today?”
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 04, 2015, 08:19:03 PM
lets look at another planet that has runaway co2 induced global warming. venus, the average temperature is a cool 872 degrees. sure it is a little closer to the sun but it is the same size as earth. the atmosphere has some co2 in it just like earth a mere 965,000 ppm. Now if we are not careful we could soon be there as well. currently earth has a co2 concentration around 390 ppm. that's a long way from 965,000 ppm but we are trending upward despite almost all life on earth craving to consume more co2. current co2 increase rates are near 15 ppm per decade or 1.5 ppm per year. so if we can continue to find new carbon, not any recycled crap but some new stuff every year we can eventually have a co2 oven like venus. it will only take (965,000 - 390) / 1.5 = ummm.... only another 643,074 years. earth has been around a lot longer than that. we can do it! just think, you will be able to fry a turkey in your fridge! maybe ovens will be used to forge your own golf clubs? oh the possibilitys. :cheers:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 04, 2015, 09:38:53 PM
Venus is not earth.
The glacial-interglacial temperature data from the past 400,000 years shows each of the previous four interglacials significantly warmer than at present. In fact, a careful analysis of the ice cores from East Antarctica, published as a letter in Nature, shows that maximum temperatures from previous interglacials were at least 6C/10F warmer than present-day temperatures, with CO2 values then about 280 PPM, and today’s values near 400 PPM. Leaving one to ask: “if CO2 is such a strong cause of warming, why is it so cold today?”
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 04, 2015, 09:54:31 PM
Further, co2 ppm counts are actually nowhere near as high as they've been... In the Carboniferous period, concentrations were as high as 8000 ppm. . http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html (http://. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html).
Again, if co2 feedback forcing were the primary driver, we'd already be wearing asbestos underwear.
As for the comparison to Venus, now you are looking at a significant difference in THE primary driver.
As any junior-level student who has ever done a thermodynamic control volume analysis knows, differences in Qdot in can really drive total system energy differences.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on November 05, 2015, 01:48:48 AM
Japan is stuffed regardless of Enviromental issues.
China is the new manufacturing power in Asia.
Japan as well as Germany have been play acting economically since 1945.
In these two countries they pay 5 people to do the job of one.
Why do you think the US is sailing warships around man made islands near China, so the Japanese carry on paying their debts.
In 20 years time you will be paying a Emissions tax, it will be paid to oil companies to offset oil production.
The only way to reduce emissions to to reduce people's consumption, this can be arranged quite easily by reducing wages and employment :rofl
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on November 05, 2015, 02:34:52 AM
The enactment of a pie tax will push Zack into becoming the leader of our rebel alliance.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 05, 2015, 05:17:10 AM
I do not know if you are aware, but you are relying on an organization, that outside of a circle of extreme diehards, that has no credibility what so ever with anyone.
Here is part of what I posted about them a short while ago:
If you want to make a living denying that climate change is happening, then the Heartland Institute is your sort of place. They do other stuff, I am just focusing on one issue.
In fact they very proudly boast of their image as: The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” — The Economist, May 26, 2012
https://www.heartland.org/
Here is someone from their leadership circle, Jay Lehr, educating us on the Fukushima incident:
“I can tell you with the utmost confidence there will not be a health impact of anything that is going on at the Fukushima power plant.”
They are against things like tobacco laws, and well, you name it and if you can fund them, there is a good chance that they will be in your corner.
See here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
On Global Warming, they have their usual set of explanations and accusations that has people like me having a good laugh from time to time. They got your standard conspiracy theories about how agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are suppressing “true” climate data and trove of other beauties. (Thinking about it, I am wondering what they think has happened over at the Pentagon and the CIA?)
But I have to tell you, the Heartland Institute gets my Crazy Climate Denial Explanation Award of perhaps all time.
In reacting to the Pope’s encyclical on climate change, the Heartland Institute suggested that the Pope is now under Pagan influences! That’s right, the Pope could be a Pagan.
I am not making this up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=behch3XrH1E
I guess that from now on, the seminal construction of the greatest metaphysical question of all time, “Is the Pope catholic?” should be replaced by asking “Is the Pope a Pagan?”
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 05, 2015, 05:21:38 AM
1. Zack is a kind of idiot savant. He's an idiot UNLESS you can translate from Northern English. 2. He's nailed Japan. Take a look at their public debt levels, their population growth rates, and their capital deficit. 3. He's unlikely to join the Rebel Alliance unless we can somehow find a way to cut off his lucrative revenue stream from "the oligarchy". You see, he's got a going concern selling them wooden pies. Apparently, there's some scheme that involves herding people into a sort of dinette area, one without proper ventilation and some kind of port in the ceiling. Prior to entry, each is handed a wooden pie.
4. The post that follows Zak is a simple ad hominem and addresses the legitimacy - or lack thereof - or Heartland's arguments... not at all.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 05, 2015, 05:53:23 AM
"Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court"
Further, co2 ppm counts are actually nowhere near as high as they've been... In the Carboniferous period, concentrations were as high as 8000 ppm. . http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html (http://. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html).
Again, if co2 feedback forcing were the primary driver, we'd already be wearing asbestos underwear.
If I remember correctly, claims of CO2 levels up to 8,000 ppm were originally made about the Ordovician period. Years later the levels were revised downward to 1,000 – 2,000 ppm.
(Your link is not working).
But whatever the level, with CO2 levels that high, the temperature of the earth should have been very high. Instead there were times when the earth came close to turning into a block of ice.
The reason is straight forward; the earth was a very different place 400+ million year ago.
A while ago, late one night, I typed up the following, a bit in jest as reply to the same essential comment as yours. In re-reading my post, I think that I was close enough on the issues to not need to issue much a correction. So here is most of the post again:
Off the top of my head (plus review of vid below), and an almost complete bottle of wine, … here’s what I can say.
Yes 400 million years ago C02 levels were high (1,000 – 2,000 ppm). As I said, even at these levels the earth almost turned into a block of ICE. If you think about it, though, the earth was a LOT DIFFERENT back then.
But let’s just move on.
I’ll tell you what, take care of these issues for me and I’ll be OK with most of what you have to say about not worrying about high C02 levels.
1) Please cool down the effect of the sun for us. I guess you can hose it down or perhaps push out the earth’s orbit a bit. (I might have an HP 41cv to help you out to figure out how far the orbit will have to go. BTW, you will have to supply the batteries)
2) Push the continents back together. You know, reverse all of that tectonic stuff.
3) Once #2 is done, hammer all of the mountains down flat. I know that this sounds tough but my thoughts are that if you pulled off #2 this shouldn’t be that hard.
4) You got to kill off a bunch of plants. Unfortunately I don’t have a list right now. But I might be able to work out a punch down list by the time you get to this task.
5) Kill off a lot of the animals. (See #4 for issues with list)
6) TBD
I think that I already posted below before. Real short. Informative;
UQx DENIAL101x 4.2.4.1 Ancient CO2 levels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqkGoCglp_U
Update: 1,000 - 2,000 ppm levels were the revised lower end of CO2 levels in some models.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 05, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
So let me ask you, if someone told you that the Pope was under Pagan influences, how should one evaluate the mental health of that person? (And it is not just Lehr).
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 05, 2015, 07:51:55 AM
Could we not build a orbiting solar panel a great distance away to block the sun? Similar to a goalie moving away from the net, thus making him relatively larger in relation to a shot and the goal. :headscratch:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on November 05, 2015, 07:52:23 AM
Here comes the global cooling :) I was driving through Toronto yesterday with AC on. :banana: (http://i.imwx.com/images/maps/current/acttemp_600x405.jpg)
"Solar storm knocks out flight control systems in Sweden, grounds planes" http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/solar-storm-sweden-1.3304271 Our electronics are so sensitive , and this was nothing kp I ndex 5-6 http://www.solarham.net/planetk.htm Extreme north and south latitudes take more radiation, I understand one of the reason ISS orbits below 60 degree N/S to avoid exposure. (http://www.nlsa.com/images/gallery/large/gallery1.gif)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on November 05, 2015, 08:07:33 AM
I think think more stringent gun ownership legislation will off set emissions :old:
I have reported that PJ Proby bloke for using homosexulet words :old:
Wooden pies are biodegradable unlike the Brewster which indestructible :old:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: WWhiskey on November 05, 2015, 08:48:11 AM
MMGW data problem A (http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-11/2861F89C-DD71-4673-AC55-53961AEA9B55.png_zpsbrf3j3gm.jpeg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-11/2861F89C-DD71-4673-AC55-53961AEA9B55.png_zpsbrf3j3gm.jpeg.html)
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 05, 2015, 02:04:44 PM
So let me ask you, if someone told you that the Pope was under Pagan influences, how should one evaluate the mental health of that person? (And it is not just Lehr).
That's central to the point. You need not evaluate HIM at all. Ask him to support his contention and evaluate his argument. Anything less than that is contempt prior to investigation of a very particular category. Play the ball, not the man.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 05, 2015, 02:07:07 PM
MMGW data problem A (http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-11/2861F89C-DD71-4673-AC55-53961AEA9B55.png_zpsbrf3j3gm.jpeg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/WWhiskey/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-11/2861F89C-DD71-4673-AC55-53961AEA9B55.png_zpsbrf3j3gm.jpeg.html)
Ah, yes, Whiskey... you've managed to urinate in the warmist's cornflakes. Why is it their "adjustments" always want to produce a trend upward to the right? I note that NOAA is attempting to paper over the pause in similar fashion.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 05, 2015, 02:34:39 PM
The current rate at which the earth's orbit moves away from the sun is 15cm a year. As it moves away, what happens to average temperatures over time in periods of 500,000 years? 400,000 years ago during the interglacial the planet was 10 degrees hotter.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: morfiend on November 05, 2015, 03:22:00 PM
I cant wait... :furious :furious
When do the palm trees start to sprout in the arctic??
We want to start selling water front property but at present it's covered in ice!
I'm planning an orange grove,maybe some lemons and I will never have to build another damn igloo! :aok
:salute
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Brooke on November 05, 2015, 03:40:53 PM
So let me ask you, if someone told you that the Pope was under Pagan influences, how should one evaluate the mental health of that person? (And it is not just Lehr).
If you consider socialism and communism to be pagan influences, then it holds true. :aok
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: ghi on November 05, 2015, 05:30:58 PM
Tornadoes Texas, Oklahoma,Arkansas :pray
https://tvnweather.com/live
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: NatCigg on November 05, 2015, 05:39:43 PM
When do the palm trees start to sprout in the arctic??
We want to start selling water front property but at present it's covered in ice!
I'm planning an orange grove,maybe some lemons and I will never have to build another damn igloo! :aok
:salute
the seeds are probably still there! :old: just need a little more sun......
I want the new yorkers to come buy my land. :neener: silly twits will probably want to build a wall or something. :bhead
:airplane:
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: bustr on November 05, 2015, 08:01:00 PM
The Pope probably sees the world wide governmental mechanisms of GW trying to force wealth redistribution as a necessary evil for some of that wealth being redistributed to the third world poor.
You have to wonder if recent leaks of Vatican documents and legal investigations into misappropriation of funds by Vatican insiders is a message to the Pope to get out of the politics business. His job is to have faith in God's plan for mankind and present that message. Not measure the height of shore lines and lobby governments to redistribute their citizens wealth because he decided the oceans are too high.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 07, 2015, 09:45:01 AM
That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.
Honestly, I thought that that was a very weak counter argument, however, none the less could you please explain the following DoD report from 2004: Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
It was a report that originally was suppressed on “national Security grounds”
Quotes from the 2004 article:
“'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,'”
“Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received skeptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,'”
I await your FoxNews sanctioned response.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 07, 2015, 09:46:32 AM
That's central to the point. You need not evaluate HIM at all. Ask him to support his contention and evaluate his argument. Anything less than that is contempt prior to investigation of a very particular category. Play the ball, not the man.
I do not agree with you, not in this case. If you cite an authority’s judgment to support or prove an argument that you are making, (which, in the right context is a completely legitimate tactic), then the judgment of that authority is a perfectly acceptable topic of discussion. It is not playing the man.
For example, as I pointed out in a much earlier reference on The Heartland Institute, here is their advice to the world on the Fukushima incident:
“I can tell you with the utmost confidence there will not be a health impact of anything that is going on at the Fukushima power plant.”
The Pope probably sees the world wide governmental mechanisms of GW trying to force wealth redistribution as a necessary evil for some of that wealth being redistributed to the third world poor.
You have to wonder if recent leaks of Vatican documents and legal investigations into misappropriation of funds by Vatican insiders is a message to the Pope to get out of the politics business. His job is to have faith in God's plan for mankind and present that message. Not measure the height of shore lines and lobby governments to redistribute their citizens wealth because he decided the oceans are too high.
I must say that it has been very entertaining watching American conservative Catholics contort into mangled mental pretzels over Pope Francis.
http://imgur.com/yWXTHFD
More fun I would say than watching Bill O’Reilly explain away details of his days as a “combat journalist” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/bill-oreilly-brian-williams-falklands-war
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: SysError on November 07, 2015, 09:51:39 AM
2. I'm part of the consensus ... The bar for "agreement" is set very low, as you'll see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/) 3. A more truthful read says the scientific community is divided on the matter, especially within climate science itself.
As long as you do not read the cited studies on the site you point to, yes you can make your statement.
In fact I will be using your cited study from now as another proof that there is overwhelming evidence from “peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.”
Thank You.
In support of your claim, you turn to Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (WUWT) web site. In it he mocks the statement that 97% of scientists believe in global warming. He says for example:
Quote
“97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots ….. Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. …. That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.”
WUWT quotes extensively from the abstract and concludes by stating:
Quote
“So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.”
Pretty damning stuff if you ask me!
Well I guess that it would only be fair to ask what Jon Cook and The Consensus Project set out to measure. They state:
Quote
“…the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. …. we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”.”
http://theconsensusproject.com/
Their full report is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
So what did the AMS study conclude about this group of respondents? Well here it is:
Quote
“Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence.”
Anthony Watts is a charlatan that takes people as lazy fools.
BTW: I originally had a much longer and detailed reply using the AMS study, but I dropped it for the sake of brevity. When you reply in a heroic effort to salvage the reputation of Mr. Watts please do me the favor of actually reading the study. There is a lot more there to damn Mr. Watts and WUWT. (Unless of course you quote out of context or selectively parse sentences, which is all that you can do).
P.S. Please be sure to click on several of Mr. Watts’ eye candy adverting banners, I really do not mind having to deal with light weights such as him. I so do want him to stay around.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on November 08, 2015, 10:04:24 PM
As long as you do not read the cited studies on the site you point to, yes you can make your statement.
In fact I will be using your cited study from now as another proof that there is overwhelming evidence from “peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming.”
Thank You.
In support of your claim, you turn to Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That (WUWT) web site. In it he mocks the statement that 97% of scientists believe in global warming. He says for example:
WUWT quotes extensively from the abstract and concludes by stating: Pretty damning stuff if you ask me!
Well I guess that it would only be fair to ask what Jon Cook and The Consensus Project set out to measure. They state:
http://theconsensusproject.com/
Their full report is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta
So what did the AMS study conclude about this group of respondents? Well here it is:
Anthony Watts is a charlatan that takes people as lazy fools.
BTW: I originally had a much longer and detailed reply using the AMS study, but I dropped it for the sake of brevity. When you reply in a heroic effort to salvage the reputation of Mr. Watts please do me the favor of actually reading the study. There is a lot more there to damn Mr. Watts and WUWT. (Unless of course you quote out of context or selectively parse sentences, which is all that you can do).
P.S. Please be sure to click on several of Mr. Watts’ eye candy adverting banners, I really do not mind having to deal with light weights such as him. I so do want him to stay around.
No, thank YOU for serving up a piñata that Godzilla can knock out of the park. I'm not sure if you're just unaware or complicit in trying to perpetuate Cooks falsehoods. It matters little.
Your man Cook cherry-picked his data, discarding everything he didn't like... http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked
This one is even more devastating: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
I can see why you don't accept a refutation of the ad hominem. Ultimately, it's all you've got.
Btw, the example you cited had it exactly backwards and unwittingly supported my assertion. You used an example in which a proponent advances a preposterous argument as a means of discrediting the proponent. That IS playing the ball on the argument and should nicely illustrate the dangers of advancing too many preposterous arguments... In terms of future credibility.
But then, I expect this phenomenon is one with which you're painfully familiar, considering what you just got caught trying to do...
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: FLS on November 08, 2015, 10:54:50 PM
rut roo the source of poison o2 and cause of decreasing co2 could be tied to increased co2? is mother nature happy to get more carbon? is she cycling things around, again? where will this lead? rut roo nobody knows, and it was not in the models? rut roo.
:uhoh
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: Shuffler on November 27, 2015, 09:57:55 PM
Ice is shrinking so fast in the north they're already preparing to evacuate ice dependant villages... Can we do something to reverse this for the next generation, or is the next generation just iphones and suv's with long commutes...? Your own fate is in front of your own eyes... The more conversation we have about this the better chance we have if anyone cares anymore....
Ice is increasing in the south. Mother Nature at her best.
Title: Re: How or Why we will reverse global warming
Post by: zack1234 on November 28, 2015, 02:33:28 AM
I thought New Year's was timed based on the northern European practice of fermenting grain to make alcoho-ho-hol. 10 days post solstice... coincidental? I think not.