Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: RSL on April 27, 2018, 10:35:32 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Yes, there are other references that tell us two years of global cooling don't really interfere with or cast doubt on global warming and that "studies" and "computer models" tell us this is an anomaly within a great trend, and, as usual, you can believe anything you really want to believe. But what's interesting to me is that none of this has been reported in United States' "mainstream media." Golly. Anybody want to speculate about why?
Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.
-
Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.
You're wrong, the sky isn't falling ;)
-
I don't know if global warming is true or false Russ, as there are believable and unbelievable arguments being used on both sides of the debate, but I do know that during my 60 year lifetime on this orbiting chunk of rock, that the weather systems and seasons have definitely changed and changed quite dramatically. So whether you feel the need to deny it is warming, or indeed whether it is cooling, or if any of this is due to the impact of man on the planet (or not), but surely no one can deny that it is changing.
Dave
-
Russ, you can calm down now. We just received good news from Sweden - ABBA have reunited, two new songs coming soon.
-
Russ, you can calm down now. We just received good news from Sweden - ABBA have reunited, two new songs coming soon.
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't know if global warming is true or false Russ, as there are believable and unbelievable arguments being used on both sides of the debate, but I do know that during my 60 year lifetime on this orbiting chunk of rock, that the weather systems and seasons have definitely changed and changed quite dramatically. So whether you feel the need to deny it is warming, or indeed whether it is cooling, or if any of this is due to the impact of man on the planet (or not), but surely no one can deny that it is changing.
Dave
It's always changing, Dave. Check with Leif Erikson for recent warming, and check the "Little Ice Age" for recent cooling.
-
The concept of climate is a human, mathematical construct, of an 'average of weather events' over a variable number of years.
The historical record shows that climate has always been changing, both locally and globally, in big cycles and in little cycles, over long periods of time, and over short periods of time, so there's no rational reason to suppose that this natural process has suddenly stopped and that all current changes in climate are due to mankind's influence.
If it turns out to be true that the current, elevated levels of CO2, are the main driving force behind the current, slight global warming, which I doubt, then such elevated levels could protect mankind from the uncomfortable effects of another Little Ice Age in the near future, which could result from natural processes without the balancing effect of elevated levels of CO2.
I can't help wondering if I'll live long enough to see this happen, and read reports of how and why our fathers got this issue so wrong. ;)
-
how and why our fathers got this issue so wrong. ;)
It's not our fathers, it's us ;)
-
It's not our fathers, it's us ;)
True. I was putting myself in the place of the next generation, who in 20 or 30 years time, if or when it becomes clear that the atmospheric level of CO2 in itself has an insignificant effect on climate, or, as the case might be, but I doubt it, confirm that CO2 does have a warming effect and that higher levels of CO2 could have saved us from the discomfort of another Little Ice Age if their fathers hadn't been so obsessive about reducing CO2 levels. ;)
-
Good news from Australia. The government pledged half a billion dollars for the restoration and protection of Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/103473044/australian-government-pledges-535m-for-great-barrier-reef
-
Good news from Australia. The government pledged half a billion dollars for the restoration and protection of Great Barrier Reef.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/103473044/australian-government-pledges-535m-for-great-barrier-reef
""To simultaneously promote the world's biggest coal mine while pretending to care about the world's largest reef is an acrobatic feat only the most cynical politicians would attempt," he said in a statement."
I thought Oz was an ideal place for solar energy harvesting. One could fill the middle with receptor panels and market the electricity, damaging nobody at all. It's what the Sun is for, after all. Most of the ancient religions knew that; only in this cynical, atheistic age have we widely lost the knowledge, believing it to exist for the sole purpose of turning us honkies brown, and giving us gratuitous cancers of the skin.
Rob
-
""To simultaneously promote the world's biggest coal mine while pretending to care about the world's largest reef is an acrobatic feat only the most cynical politicians would attempt," he said in a statement."
I thought Oz was an ideal place for solar energy harvesting. One could fill the middle with receptor panels and market the electricity, damaging nobody at all. It's what the Sun is for, after all. Most of the ancient religions knew that; only in this cynical, atheistic age have we widely lost the knowledge, believing it to exist for the sole purpose of turning us honkies brown, and giving us gratuitous cancers of the skin.
The problem is getting it from the middle to somewhere that needs it, and storing it when demand is low and supply is high (although South Australia and Tesla have made a good start on the storage front).
-
The concept of climate is a human, mathematical construct, of an 'average of weather events' over a variable number of years.
The historical record shows that climate has always been changing, both locally and globally, in big cycles and in little cycles, over long periods of time, and over short periods of time, so there's no rational reason to suppose that this natural process has suddenly stopped and that all current changes in climate are due to mankind's influence.
If it turns out to be true that the current, elevated levels of CO2, are the main driving force behind the current, slight global warming, which I doubt, then such elevated levels could protect mankind from the uncomfortable effects of another Little Ice Age in the near future, which could result from natural processes without the balancing effect of elevated levels of CO2.
I can't help wondering if I'll live long enough to see this happen, and read reports of how and why our fathers got this issue so wrong. ;)
Right on, Ray. I've told this story before: When I was at University of Michigan at the beginning of the fifties, the entire geology department was convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. That idea continued for quite a while until the establishment decided that all those cars rushing around and all those people breathing and all those cows farting were dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere, and they wanted it STOPPED. That's when global warming began to take center stage. Then, they discovered that their computer models weren't cutting it and changed the name to "climate change." The climate always changes. Same as when somebody asked J.P. Morgan "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?" and J.P. came back with: "The market will fluctuate."
-
"To simultaneously promote the world's biggest coal mine while pretending to care about the world's largest reef is an acrobatic feat only the most cynical politicians would attempt," he said in a statement."
I see some more negative statements in the article. Let's examine them.
"Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Mark Butler said the Great Barrier Reef was being attacked "from every side" through climate change, land clearing and trawling.
"You can't be serious about saving the reef without a serious plan to tackle climate change," he said in a statement.
"As long as (Australian Prime Minister) Malcolm Turnbull continues to pander to the climate change deniers of his party room the Great Barrier Reef will continue to suffer."
Australian Marine Conservation Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said while the funding was welcome, it would be pointless if carbon pollution was not reduced and the Adani coal mine was allowed to go ahead.
"Australia must make the transition from burning polluting coal to a 100 per cent renewable powered future if we are to protect the future of the reef," she said in a statement."
What illogical statements. Even though Australia's emissions of CO2 per capita might be greater than the per capita emissions of most other countries, Australia's population is relatively small, at less than 25 million, therefore Australia's contribution to total global emissions of CO2 is only a very small percentage of those global emissions. According to the linked Wikipedia article below, it was 1.24% in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly evenly spread around the globe. Even if Australia were to become the first country in the world to produce all of its energy requirements with no emissions of CO2 whatsoever, that would have hardly any effect in protecting the Great Barrier Reef, assuming that CO2 emissions are the cause of the current problem, which is not at all certain.
However, what is certain is that the crown-of-thorns starfish is damaging the reef, as well as the run-off of fertilizers and pesticides from local farms close to the reef.
Tackling these issues of greater certainty is by far the more sensible approach, although it could be embarrassing for the AGW alarmists if the reef were largely restored to its former health as a result of eliminating the crown-of-thorns starfish and the chemical run-off. ;)
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Yes, there are other references that tell us two years of global cooling don't really interfere with or cast doubt on global warming and that "studies" and "computer models" tell us this is an anomaly within a great trend, and, as usual, you can believe anything you really want to believe. But what's interesting to me is that none of this has been reported in United States' "mainstream media." Golly. Anybody want to speculate about why?
Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.
Do not want to take a position here on global warming/cooling. There is so much information and misinformation on that topic that it is always important to examine the source:
a) Daily Mail is a tabloid
b) David Rose "has been criticised by climate scientists and environmentalists for an over-reliance on unsound and unscientific sources and has been censured by Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)" (Wikipedia).
Of course, that does not mean that he the article is wrong per se, but rather that the article is not trustworthy.
-
Sometimes, it takes an activist pressure to stimulate technological advancements.
This week, Bosch made their move, announcing via a dramatic statement from their CEO that "today, we want to put a stop, once and for all, to the debate about the demise of diesel technology." If diesel is to be redeemed after all, it appears that many will vie for the role of savior.
"There's a future for diesel," said Bosch CEO Volkmar Denner at the company's annual press conference on Wednesday. "Bosch is pushing the boundaries of what is technically feasible. Equipped with the latest Bosch technology, diesel vehicles will be classed as low-emission vehicles and yet remain affordable."
http://www.dw.com/en/miracle-or-mirage-boschs-diesel-breakthrough/a-43565880
-
You're wrong, the sky isn't falling ;)
Because it can't. But that doesn't stop some here from creating posts that have nothing to do with photography on a photo site because they can't find a forum on arguing about politics to waste their time on. Wouldn’t working on their (so called) photography (fine art or otherwise) be time better spent?
-
True. I was putting myself in the place of the next generation, who in 20 or 30 years time, if or when it becomes clear that the atmospheric level of CO2 in itself has an insignificant effect on climate, or, as the case might be, but I doubt it, confirm that CO2 does have a warming effect and that higher levels of CO2 could have saved us from the discomfort of another Little Ice Age if their fathers hadn't been so obsessive about reducing CO2 levels. ;)
Denying scientific evidence won't help your credibility. It has been know since 1824 that certain gasses cause a greenhouse effect. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It has also been known since the second half of the last century that a large part is caused by humans, through the burning of fossil fuel.
Even the oil companies confirm that:
https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6
And it is anthropogenic (caused by humans burning fossil fuels):
https://youtu.be/-PrrTk6DqzE
And it will impact our Climate:
https://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw
Denial of established facts and science doesn't help to address the issues. It does affect your credibility, your choice.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
+1.
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
Global warming's okay, eh Alan, but not global cooling?
Here are a couple references the global warmists might want to see. There are many more out there. Yes, I know, there's all sorts of "scientific evidence" on both sides of the question, including the horse hockey stick that sort of blew up in the faces of those who invented it.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/global-warming-most-dishonest-year-on-record/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
-
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png)
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/GISTEMP_Seasonal_Cycle_since_1880/graph.png)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Right, Bart. What those graphs tell me is that we're still recovering from the little ice age. But I'd also be interested to know how we were gathering world-wide temperature data in 1880 compared with how we're gathering it now. Wouldn't you?
-
Right, Bart. What those graphs tell me is that we're still recovering from the little ice age. But I'd also be interested to know how we were gathering world-wide temperature data in 1880 compared with how we're gathering it now. Wouldn't you?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2540/tree-rings-provide-snapshots-of-earths-past-climate/
-
Yeah, I know all about tree rings, Omer. I grew up in Michigan. But the question I wonder about is the relative accuracy of methods. You can't measure current tree rings. They're still growing. In other words, I question the accuracy of any chart similar to the one Bart posted.
-
Yeah, I know all about tree rings, Omer. I grew up in Michigan. But the question I wonder about is the relative accuracy of methods. You can't measure current tree rings. They're still growing. In other words, I question the accuracy of any chart similar to the one Bart posted.
Well okay. ;D
PS Looked at your galleries on your web site. The Asian and Sixties sets are very nice.
-
Thanks, my friend. All that stuff was done with film -- most of it with Leicas or with a Canon 7, which was a Leica knockoff. Loved those cameras.
-
As to the effects of the asteroids, pollution (of any kind - plastics, CO2, methane, ...) and overpopulation.
When it comes to the asteroid, we don't have any control, maybe there will be another big bang, but not anytime soon.
However, humanity facing the other two factors could be compared with the frog and slowly warming water in the pot where it is sitting. Comfy, not complaining, and surprisingly not doing anything to prevent the ugly outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APxGubAkOz0
One would think that humans are smarter than frogs.
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
Alan,
Perhaps the discussion should be directed towards the fundamental requirements of the scientific methodology before a degree of certainty about an issue can be achieved, so that those who don't have a scientific background might learn something. ;)
For example, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the significance of the DXOMark measurements regarding camera noise. However, those who possess a reasonable amount of scientific competence should be able to carry out their own tests, comparing different models of cameras, shooting the same scene under the same lighting conditions, then comparing the results. That's a relatively easy problem to solve.
However, whenever there is a huge number of variables that can have an effect, and relatively long time-spans are involved before a significant effect occurs, there has to be a degree of scientific uncertainty.
Those who create certainty in such circumstances are either delusional or have their own non-scientific agenda, in my opinion.
A good analogy, with similar complexity to the climate change issue, is the effect of factors such as diet, exercise and pharmaceutical drugs on human health.
We can be certain about the immediate effects of certain drugs because the effects can be observed within hours, days, or weeks. However, long term negative effects are much less certain.
Likewise with certain health foods, supplements, and herbs. Their beneficial effects can take many years before they become apparent, and even then one cannot be sure to what extent other factors in one's lifestyle have contributed to the effect.
For example, how does one determine with scientific certainty that taking Resveratrol supplements will prolong one's life? Experiment with short-life creatures such as mice?
Consider the continuing confusion about the benefits of excluding saturated fats from one's diet. In order to be scientifically certain about the issue one would need to conduct long-term experiments under controlled conditions, which is virtually impossible with humans. The closest we might get is to recruit a number of twins at an early age, and persuade them to lead, as far as possible, an identical lifestyle, with the exception that one of the twins eats a fat-free diet, and the other twin includes all natural, saturated fats in his/her diet, such as pure butter, full cream yoghurt and milk, grass-fed beef, coconut oil, and so on.
However, even with such a relatively controlled experiment, it would be necessary to ensure that the part of the diet of each twin which included either saturated fats, or fat-reduced food, contained the same calorific value, otherwise one of the twins could become overweight, which could affect the health outcomes, and introduce other variables. In other words, both twins would be eating the same amount of vegetables and other healthy foods, but the twin who included saturated fat in his diet might drink just half a bottle of full cream milk for every full bottle of fat-reduced milk drunk by the other twin.
If the thread is closed down, I would request that it not be removed, so that those with an inquiring mind might learn from my words of wisdom. ;D
-
Ray, as you say it's dificult to draw any reliable conclusions of isolated dietary studies with small samples. Even your hypothetical example with twins is not infallible, since there can still be multiple differences between the twins and their lifestyles (i.e. one lives in a house with hardwood floor and windows that can be opened, with a friendly and accommodating wife, whereas the other lives in an apartment building with sealed windows and thick broadloom, and went through three unhappy marriages).
However, when comparing larger studies, i.e. effect of dairy intake in Scandinavia or New Zeeland, it becomes quickly obvious that the harmful ingredients in milk have some effect on bone health.
Sweden - annual dairy consumption 355 kg and 802 bone fractures,
Denmark - 295 and 853,
Norway - 261 and 563,
Finland - 361 and 440,
New Zeeland - 110 and 288
Mexico - 155 and 169
In Far East Asia, the results are even more pronounced:
Thailand - 22 and 7 ?!
China - 29 and 97
the more affluent Asian countries showing slightly higher numbers:
Japan - 93 and 266
South Korea - 71 and 266
https://www.nature.com/bonekeyreports/2016/160629/bonekey201630/fig_tab/bonekey201630_T1.html
Similarly, the very large "China Study" established a long time ago the beneficial effect of plant-based diet and harmful effects of animal protein. They found that average blood cholesterol levels in rural China (127 mg/dl) were far lower than in the USA (215 mg/dl) and the death rate from coronary heart disease was 17 times lower in rural Chinese men than among American men.
So the problem is not necessarily the diffifulty in obtaining the data, but rather the deep pockets of dairy, pharma, and meat industries, who pay for and promote their selective studies and agenda. Not unlike the tobacco industry did before them.
-
I want this thread closed down right now...
And I want a million dollars... scratch that, a couple of millions... right now! ;)
-
How does it feel to want??
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
Alan
BTW, I forgot, AWWWWWW how terrible for you!
-
How does it feel to want??
Have you tried asking Alexa?
-
And I want a million dollars... scratch that, a couple of millions... right now! ;)
And this highlights the folly of trying to get any semblance of intelligent discussion on this thread. Your snarky comments now are no different than when we had the previous thread.
-
You can't measure current tree rings. They're still growing. In other words, I question the accuracy of any chart similar to the one Bart posted.
Yes, you can if you collect a core sample. You also can core trees that have been dead.
-
As to the effects of the asteroids, pollution (of any kind - plastics, CO2, methane, ...) and overpopulation.
When it comes to the asteroid, we don't have any control, maybe there will be another big bang, but not anytime soon.
However, humanity facing the other two factors could be compared with the frog and slowly warming water in the pot where it is sitting. Comfy, not complaining, and surprisingly not doing anything to prevent the ugly outcome.
You may have a hard time believing this, Les, but I agree with you. The only problem is that I don't believe eschewing plastic on an individual basis is going to solve the problem, or even make a dent in it. It's a political problem, and an international political problem. The only way to force a solution would be to invade and conquer the world. And even then there are interests who'll always fight a solution, because a solution would cost them money. In the end I suspect that as has been the case with most worldwide problems -- Hitler comes to mind -- we'll have to wait until we're faced with a catastrophe before we'll act.
-
And this highlights the folly of trying to get any semblance of intelligent discussion on this thread. Your snarky comments now are no different than when we had the previous thread.
Alan, why don't you quit while you're ahead? Well, I guess you're not ahead. But at least you can still quit before all is lost.
-
Let's just ignore what climatologists and other experts tell us. Let's just ignore the data & the explanations to account for it. What do these so-called 'experts' know anyway? I read something on the interwebz that reinforces my point-of-view, so however uncomfortable the facts are I'm going to deny them and instead grasp at any counter-claim as firm evidence that the matter is just a conspiracy by somebody. So there.
I'm fed up with science denialists, so how about we get back to photography? At least that's something we can all agree about. And Nikon is better than Sony or Canon.
-
I'm fed up with science denialists, so how about we get back to photography? At least that's something we can all agree about. And Nikon is better than Sony or Canon.
Well, at least we can agree about Nikon.
Who are the science denialists Bill? Are those the people who didn't buy the "scientific" horse-hockey stick.
-
Ray, as you say it's dificult to draw any reliable conclusions of isolated dietary studies with small samples. Even your hypothetical example with twins is not infallible, since there can still be multiple differences between the twins and their lifestyles (i.e. one lives in a house with hardwood floor and windows that can be opened, with a friendly and accommodating wife, whereas the other lives in an apartment building with sealed windows and thick broadloom, and went through three unhappy marriages).
That's true, and that is why I wrote,".... and persuade them to lead, as far as possible, an identical lifestyle,"
For the experiment to be scientifically sound, one would need to recruit a large number of twins and conduct the experiment over a number of decades, perhaps 30 or 40 or even 50 years. If, during the course of the long experiment, it was observed that a few of the twin pairs diverged significantly in their lifestyles, one of them perhaps not physically exercising nearly as much as the other, or experiencing a lot more emotional stress than the other, then those twins would have to be excluded from the results.
However, when comparing larger studies, i.e. effect of dairy intake in Scandinavia or New Zeeland, it becomes quickly obvious that the harmful ingredients in milk have some effect on bone health.
Sweden - annual dairy consumption 355 kg and 802 bone fractures,
Denmark - 295 and 853,
Norway - 261 and 563,
Finland - 361 and 440,
New Zeeland - 110 and 288
Mexico - 155 and 169
I don't think the above study is useful without more information about the lifestyles of the people included in the results, and details about how the information was collected. For example, what does a consumption of 355 kg of dairy products include. If person 'A' drinks one litre of milk per day, and takes no other dairy products, that still amounts to a yearly consumption of approximately 365 kg of dairy products. If person 'B' eats 1 kg of cheese day every day, and no other dairy products, then that represents a lot more energy than a litre of milk, but would still be described as a yearly consumption of 365 kg of dairy products.
There is also a significant anomaly in the above results you've quoted. Sweden with an annual dairy consumption of 355 kg and 802 bone fractures, and Finland with a slightly higher consumption of dairy products, 361 kg, yet a very significantly lower number of bone fractures, only 440.
That seems to me a very clear example that other significant factors are involved, which are not addressed in the study. Perhaps the major factor not addressed is the overweight and obesity problem.
The following study shows there is a strong connection between obesity, or simply being overweight, and the need for hip or knee replacement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267551/
If you were to check the overweight and obesity percentages in those countries listed in your study, which have low rates of hip replacement which seem to correlate with low consumption of dairy products, you'd probably find the obesity rates are significantly lower than they are in Western countries, although obesity seems to be on the rise everywhere.
I suspect that the real reason for the correlation between dairy consumption and bone fractures, is due to the over-consumption of dairy products and the over-consumption of meat and fat products. Too much of any type of food can be unhealthy. There have been instances of people even dying from drinking too much water in order to quench a serious thirst after running a marathon.
My personal view is that dairy products consumed in moderation are healthy. I always chose full-cream milk and prefer butter to margarine. I also eat natural and pure Yoghurt, unadulterated with sugar and other flavors, full-fat cream, sour cream, cheese, and coconut oil. I'm also as fit as a fiddle. ;)
-
Let's just ignore what climatologists and other experts tell us. Let's just ignore the data & the explanations to account for it. What do these so-called 'experts' know anyway? I read something on the interwebz that reinforces my point-of-view, so however uncomfortable the facts are I'm going to deny them and instead grasp at any counter-claim as firm evidence that the matter is just a conspiracy by somebody. So there.
I'm fed up with science denialists, so how about we get back to photography? At least that's something we can all agree about. And Nikon is better than Sony or Canon.
According to that famous American theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." ;D
-
+1, Ray -- by my favorite scientist. An ACTUAL scientist.
-
According to that famous American theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." ;D
Quite. Because science requires that scientists don't simply take someone's word for it, just because they're an expert, but instead they check the data, they replicate the experiments, they seek to disprove the findings, and when they can't, they tentatively accept the conclusions/theories etc. It doesn't mean the experts are ignorant, he was simply commenting on the tentative nature of knowledge and why we have the scientific method. But that's quite different from the ignorant dismissing the experts when they point us towards the science & the data.
-
I realize that, Bill. But I really think he had a double meaning, which often he had.
-
Right, Bart. What those graphs tell me is that we're still recovering from the little ice age.
Hi Russ,
That's your interpretation, Science has a somewhat different opinion, based on research.
This introductory video shows some of the considerations (both pro and contra anthropogenic warming) that are the basis of the concern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
The recovery mechanism since that temporary drop of between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius is relatively well understood. What is also known is that the forcings that caused the temperatures to rise again, are markedly different from what is causing the warming now (say since the last 50 years). Where changes in solar forcing (Total Solar Irradiance) caused that rise in the past, these factors are now mostly absent. They have been replaced (and then some) by CO2 emissions as the main feedback loop mechanism to raise temperatures. Without the excess CO2 from burning fossil fuel, we would probably have been experiencing a slight cooling now, rather than rapid warming.
The couple of degrees lower temperatures then caused famines and disease, because the crops were not able to adapt fast enough. The rising temperatures now are accelerating at an unprecedented rate, that it may be even harder to cope given the anticipated growth of the total world population. It's the speed of change that is perhaps even more alarming than the change itself.
A few degrees may not sound like much, but they could cause a feedback loop that spins out of control, especially since we keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Even if we would stop now, it will take a while for the climate to reach a new equilibrium. Weather extremes and rising water levels will cause more food shortages than the extra CO2 enhanced biomass could produce.
But I'd also be interested to know how we were gathering world-wide temperature data in 1880 compared with how we're gathering it now. Wouldn't you?
Well, it wasn't only done by measuring tree rings, there are various additional methods (e.g. levels of Carbon-14 and Berylium-10, the ratio of Oxigen isotopes in Carbonates, Ice core layers, trapped pollen in sediment layers, you name it) and they generally agree. So we can now reconstruct what they then could not measure as well as we can with our added capabilities of satellites etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Russ,
That's your interpretation, Science has a somewhat different opinion, based on research.
Cheers,
Bart
Right, Bart. Is that the same science and research that was predicting a new ice age in the fifties?
-
+1, Ray -- by my favorite scientist. An ACTUAL scientist.
...and some of us who have contributed to these scientific discussions over the past several months are also actual scientists
-
For anybody living between Toronto and Newmarket, on May 2nd at 7-9pm, there is a free movie by National Geographic / Leonardo DiCaprio about the effects of climate change at the Aurora Public Library.
All others can watch the 2 min. trailer, including some stunning cinematography.
https://aurorapl.ca/events/2018-05-02-190000-2018-05-02-210000/documentary-film-festival-flood
-
Ray, as you say it's dificult to draw any reliable conclusions of isolated dietary studies with small samples. Even your hypothetical example with twins is not infallible, since there can still be multiple differences between the twins and their lifestyles (i.e. one lives in a house with hardwood floor and windows that can be opened, with a friendly and accommodating wife, whereas the other lives in an apartment building with sealed windows and thick broadloom, and went through three unhappy marriages).
However, when comparing larger studies, i.e. effect of dairy intake in Scandinavia or New Zeeland, it becomes quickly obvious that the harmful ingredients in milk have some effect on bone health.
Sweden - annual dairy consumption 355 kg and 802 bone fractures,
Denmark - 295 and 853,
Norway - 261 and 563,
Finland - 361 and 440,
New Zeeland - 110 and 288
Mexico - 155 and 169
In Far East Asia, the results are even more pronounced:
Thailand - 22 and 7 ?!
China - 29 and 97
the more affluent Asian countries showing slightly higher numbers:
Japan - 93 and 266
South Korea - 71 and 266
https://www.nature.com/bonekeyreports/2016/160629/bonekey201630/fig_tab/bonekey201630_T1.html
This data is highly misleading in terms of a correlation to dairy intake. We know that hip fracture disproportionately occur in the elderly and more in women than men. The Nordic countries have higher life expediencies and one would expect more hip fractures just because of this one factor (maybe slipping on snow and ice is also a contributing factor as well). these countries also have very good health reporting because of centralized medical databases so reporting may also be more robust than in some other countries. One also needs to take into account body type and bone length as well. the trouble with any type of longitudinal data such as this is one can find multiple correlations many of which are meaningless.
-
This data is highly misleading in terms of a correlation to dairy intake. We know that hip fracture disproportionately occur in the elderly and more in women than men. The Nordic countries have higher life expediencies and one would expect more hip fractures just because of this one factor (maybe slipping on snow and ice is also a contributing factor as well). these countries also have very good health reporting because of centralized medical databases so reporting may also be more robust than in some other countries. One also needs to take into account body type and bone length as well. the trouble with any type of longitudinal data such as this is one can find multiple correlations many of which are meaningless.
Alan, taking the higher age into consideration is a good point. However, Japan has even higher longevity that the Scandinavian countries, yet far fewer bone fractures. And it's not only hip fractures, I know several middle-aged Canadian women, who broke their wrists and form-arm bones.
If you want to learn about the latest breaktroughs on this subject, there is a very good and well researched book by Amy J Lanou and Michael Castleman, called Building Bone Vitality: A Revolutionary Diet Plan to Prevent Bone Loss and Reverse Osteoporosis--Without Dairy Foods, Calcium, Estrogen, or Drugs.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0026HPHXU/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb
For years, doctors have been telling us to drink milk, eat dairy products, and take calcium pills to improve our bone vitality. The problem is, they’re wrong. This groundbreaking guide uses the latest clinical studies and the most up-to-date medical information to help you strengthen your bones, reduce the risk of fractures, and prevent osteoporosis. You’ll learn why there’s no proof of calcium’s effectiveness, despite what doctors say, and why a low-acid diet is the only effective way to prevent bone loss.
"This clear, convincing explanation of osteoporosis will change the way the world thinks about bone health. Lanou and Castleman prove beyond doubt that milk and dairy are the problem, not the solution."
-Rory Freedman, coauthor of #1 New York Times best seller Skinny Bitch
"The authors have tackled an almost intractable myth: that calcium is the one and only key to bone vitality. It isn't. Everyone who cares about preventing osteoporosis should read this book."
-- Dr. T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study
-
Right, Bart. Is that the same science and research that was predicting a new ice age in the fifties?
No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
Cheers,
Bart
-
Global warming causes bone loss. I'm sure it can be "proven." It causes diabetes at the very least.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-diabetes-20170320-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-warming-diabetes-20170320-story.html)
(http://www.hammondhenry.com/portals/hhh/Imaging/Osteoporosis.jpg)
-
Global warming causes bone loss. I'm sure it can be "proven." It causes diabetes at the very least.
Probably causes gas too.
-
...and some of us who have contributed to these scientific discussions over the past several months are also actual scientists
Well, I'm really impressed, Alan. You knew that, didn't you?
-
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
I am reading it, which I confess I didn't bother to do with the thread you moderated, more out of a sense of duty than out of interest. If and when I consider that it presents a problem, I will take what appears to me at the time to be appropriate action.
Making demands or telling me what you want is not going to be any more effective than ordering me to do something (as you tried before), even if you go so far as to add italic to the bold face* and particularly if you do it inline in the thread itself. If you have a complaint about a particular post, in that it offends against the rules I set out in my first post as moderator (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123677.0) or some other rule or code of conduct, use the "report to moderator" button and I'll look into it.
Jeremy
* "Counsel used bolded italics to make their point, a clear sign of grievous iniquity by one's foe." from Hyperphrase Technologies, LLC & anor v Microsoft Corporation, per Magistrate Judge Crocker.
-
If you want to learn about the latest breaktroughs on this subject, there is a very good and well researched book by Amy J Lanou and Michael Castleman, called Building Bone Vitality: A Revolutionary Diet Plan to Prevent Bone Loss and Reverse Osteoporosis--Without Dairy Foods, Calcium, Estrogen, or Drugs.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0026HPHXU/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb
Well, I've certainly no intention of spending actual money on it, so I suppose I have to accept that I'll never know for sure, but the extracts I could read using Amazon's "look inside" feature strongly suggest that it's complete drivel. Another pointer to that supposition is that none of its ideas appear to have become widely accepted in the near-decade since its publication.
Jeremy
-
Alan, taking the higher age into consideration is a good point. However, Japan has even higher longevity that the Scandinavian countries, yet far fewer bone fractures. And it's not only hip fractures, I know several middle-aged Canadian women, who broke their wrists and form-arm bones.
As one who did a bit of epidemiology from time to time when I was working in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs, the one thing we were taught on day one is that there are a lot of confounding variables in any given data set that looks at adverse drug reactions. The same thing is applicable to the study that you originally referenced. Population studies such as that one are very unreliable particularly if the correlation is to a single factor. Clearly one can point to single factor adverse health events such as smoking and asbestos work but trying to link dairy intake to fracture number is really pushing the limit.
EDIT ADDED: Also note that the paper you referenced only dealt with osteoporosis risks in East Africa linked to a lactase persistence genotype. A lot of the references in the paper are quite old and I'm unsure about current research in the area in terms of identifying a linkage to dairy intake.
-
No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
Cheers,
Bart
Right, Bart. Different people. Same old, same old.
-
As one who did a bit of epidemiology from time to time when I was working in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs, the one thing we were taught on day one is that there are a lot of confounding variables in any given data set that looks at adverse drug reactions. The same thing is applicable to the study that you originally referenced. Population studies such as that one are very unreliable particularly if the correlation is to a single factor. Clearly one can point to single factor adverse health events such as smoking and asbestos work but trying to link dairy intake to fracture number is really pushing the limit.
EDIT ADDED: Also note that the paper you referenced only dealt with osteoporosis risks in East Africa linked to a lactase persistence genotype. A lot of the references in the paper are quite old and I'm unsure about current research in the area in terms of identifying a linkage to dairy intake.
There are numerous new books on the osteoporosis which dispel the old myths. The authors of the book I recommended analyzed over 1200 studies.
Attached is an excerpt from the introduction to the book I mentioned in my previous post. Written by the well regarded Dr. Dean Ornish. You can look up his credentials.
-
Probably causes gas too.
Indeed, Russ. Even hot liquids and carbonated drinks can trigger gas or bloating.
-
Right, Bart. Different people. Same old, same old.
In this thread it's even the same people doing the same old, same old.
As I said in the other thread, I find the deniers are equally religious in their beliefs on this subject as the people they are accusing to be religious believers of global warming.
It's pot and kettle to no end.
-
Hi Pieter,
You've gotta remember that most people just chug along and don't pay much attention to the attempts of politicians posing as scientists to panic them about the termination of the human race. This kind of disguised political agitation has been going on as long as I've been around and I've been around a long time (relatively). It was particularly active during FDR's reign in the U.S. It subsided for a fair term, but it's been with us again, big time, for a couple decades.
Now Alan will tell you that he IS a scientist -- whatever that means -- and I don't doubt it. But is it possible that Alan could have a political view that might at least aim his scientific ideas in a particular direction? Perish the thought?
If global warming really is a threat, and looking at the history of long-term warming and cooling cycles I have to doubt it, then nothing's going to be done until a problem is visible, or felt, by a majority. And agitation in the (fake?) news media and on the internet isn't going to make this problem, if it is a problem, felt.
So the "scientists" crying wolf are spinning their wheels (to mix a couple metaphors). It's gonna take a disaster, or near disaster for them to get traction. But even on the basis of our current "scientific" guesses disaster is a long way off in the future.
Which is why this thread is a giant waste of time. But so is solitaire, and this is a lot more entertaining than solitaire.
-
Pieter has it exactly right. We have tried to have reasonable scientific discussions but they quickly evolve into argumentative polemics pepperd with snarky comments. This was the reason for my earlier post requesting it be locked.
For the record Russ both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in chemistry. This included a semester seminar in atmospheric chemistry.
-
Which is why this thread is a giant waste of time. But so is solitaire, and this is a lot more entertaining than solitaire.
Not only entertaining, but if you apply some of the information dispensed here, it could be life saving.
-
Pieter has it exactly right. We have tried to have reasonable scientific discussions but they quickly evolve into argumentative polemics pepperd with snarky comments. This was the reason for my earlier post requesting it be locked.
For the record Russ both my undergraduate and graduate degrees are in chemistry. This included a semester seminar in atmospheric chemistry.
Thanks, Alan, for explaining your scientific background. But to say that you "requested" the thread be locked is a strange way to characterize "I want this thread closed down right now." and to add "I'm completely serious about this!" isn't exactly backing away from the first statement. But. . . whatever.
-
. . . if you apply some of the information dispensed here, it could be life saving.
Really, Les? What do you think is going to attack our lives? Surely you're not talking about global warming, which essentially has been in abeyance for the past fifteen years, and even has begun receding during the past two or so. Maybe you're talking about an asteroid strike.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Yes, there are other references that tell us two years of global cooling don't really interfere with or cast doubt on global warming and that "studies" and "computer models" tell us this is an anomaly within a great trend, and, as usual, you can believe anything you really want to believe. But what's interesting to me is that none of this has been reported in United States' "mainstream media." Golly. Anybody want to speculate about why?
Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.
I promise not to post a comment.
I promise not to post a comment.
I promise not to post a comment.
Oh cripes! Sucked in again.
The polar bears must be happy about this. Climatologists will have to pick another victim in the animal kingdom to make us feel guilty. They always try to make us feel guilty to get their way. Ever notice that?
-
Really, Les? What do you think is going to attack our lives? Surely you're not talking about global warming, which essentially has been in abeyance for the past fifteen years, and even has begun receding during the past two or so. Maybe you're talking about an asteroid strike.
Nah, I have other things to worry about than asteroids. And I spelled them out many times in these threads, but there are people out there who won't listen. What can I do?
Let the devil take the global warming or cooling, what counts now is that the weather in my neck of woods has finally warmed up. From a freezing point to a really pleasant temperature - almost like in central Florida. Perfect time to strap the canoe on the car and put it in a nice lake or a swift river free of microplastics and before the ravenous mosquitos unencumbered with neonicotinoids come out.
-
Hi Pieter,
You've gotta remember that most people just chug along and don't pay much attention to the attempts of politicians posing as scientists to panic them about the termination of the human race. This kind of disguised political agitation has been going on as long as I've been around and I've been around a long time (relatively). It was particularly active during FDR's reign in the U.S. It subsided for a fair term, but it's been with us again, big time, for a couple decades.
Now Alan will tell you that he IS a scientist -- whatever that means -- and I don't doubt it. But is it possible that Alan could have a political view that might at least aim his scientific ideas in a particular direction? Perish the thought?
If global warming really is a threat, and looking at the history of long-term warming and cooling cycles I have to doubt it, then nothing's going to be done until a problem is visible, or felt, by a majority. And agitation in the (fake?) news media and on the internet isn't going to make this problem, if it is a problem, felt.
So the "scientists" crying wolf are spinning their wheels (to mix a couple metaphors). It's gonna take a disaster, or near disaster for them to get traction. But even on the basis of our current "scientific" guesses disaster is a long way off in the future.
Which is why this thread is a giant waste of time. But so is solitaire, and this is a lot more entertaining than solitaire.
Hi Russ,
I'm not saying that what you claim here isn't happening, but from the broad and diverse sources I'm reading you're upset about a minority, picturing them as the mainstream, but you're giving them too much credit for what they really represent.
On the other hand you're using the exact same tactic to try and tell us the end of civilization is near because the left has taken over the media and the universities. Just because of your hunch and you say it, doesn't make it gospel either.
As I said, same old, same old, pot and kettle type discussions, so I'm back to photography which beats both solitaire as well as wasting too much time in this thread.
-
If anybody on LuLa is panicked by the warnings put forth on this and other LuLa threads by the usual suspects, I'd like to remind you of that highly credentialed scientist, Paul Erlich, who wrote The Population Bomb. in 1968. According to Erlich's extensive research and unimpeachable science the human race was coming to an end by the year 2000.
He sold three million copies of that book, and of course he created the usual panic on the left. To solve the problem he recommended the same kind of control by elites that's being recommended by those who are worried about global warming (or as it was renamed after it turned out the globe wasn't really warming, "climate change.") Considering the fact that climate always is changing the new name seemed a sure winner. But it appears few are hiding under the bed.
Best to keep Prof. Erlich in mind any time somebody comes out with a scientifically researched prediction that we face doom if we don't let left-wing elites manage our lives.
-
Isn't it true that both, more extreme, sides of the political spectrum are very good at claiming the other sides' defeat and claiming Pyrrhic victories?
-
The conservative global warming deniers are now getting bit on their economic asses in Miami -- according to the Wall Street Journal, waterfront and near-waterfront houses are now being discounted because of slowly rising oceans and increasing instances of flooding. This is the free market doing it, not CNN.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fears-reshape-miamis-housing-market-1524225600
There are other long-term real-world non-political tests of global warming as well. Since I first bought a home in Minnesota's St. Croix Valley in 1978, the gardening temperature/growing season guidelines for that specific area have gone up a full notch under the USDA guidelines. We have earlier and warmer springs, slightly shorter and warmer winters (though still cold) and this change has happened in a single generation.
IMHO, and I offer this thought with complete and humble charity, anyone who denies global warming is stupid.
-
The conservative global warming deniers are now getting bit on their economic asses in Miami -- according to the Wall Street Journal, waterfront and near-waterfront houses are now being discounted because of slowly rising oceans and increasing instances of flooding. This is the free market doing it, not CNN.
IMHO, and I offer this thought with complete and humble charity, anyone who denies global warming is stupid.
...and the US Navy is extremely concerned about the very large port at Norfolk VA which is increasingly prone to flooding issues. As John notes, markets and Mother Nature will answer all the questions and very little of the comments on this forum will have any impact at all.
-
The conservative global warming deniers are now getting bit on their economic asses in Miami -- according to the Wall Street Journal, waterfront and near-waterfront houses are now being discounted because of slowly rising oceans and increasing instances of flooding. This is the free market doing it, not CNN.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fears-reshape-miamis-housing-market-1524225600
There are other long-term real-world non-political tests of global warming as well. Since I first bought a home in Minnesota's St. Croix Valley in 1978, the gardening temperature/growing season guidelines for that specific area have gone up a full notch under the USDA guidelines. We have earlier and warmer springs, slightly shorter and warmer winters (though still cold) and this change has happened in a single generation.
IMHO, and I offer this thought with complete and humble charity, anyone who denies global warming is stupid.
Right, John. It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate. If you dig out your historical geology books you'll find this isn't something the world has never seen before. And, golly, it's gotten warmer in a single generation? The only possible solution is to hide under the bed.
-
Right, John. It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate. If you dig out your historical geology books you'll find this isn't something the world has never seen before. And, golly, it's gotten warmer in a single generation? The only possible solution is to hide under the bed.
What you describe is dependent on the bedrock and its stability. It's not necessarily sinkage but rising water levels which are often exacerbated by higher than normal tides. We don't have reliable sea level data going back as many years as we do average temperatures. We do have a lot of recent data on the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland which show a marked change in ice cap and glaciers.
-
Right, John. It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate. If you dig out your historical geology books you'll find this isn't something the world has never seen before. And, golly, it's gotten warmer in a single generation? The only possible solution is to hide under the bed.
A quick google search showed that the coastal subsidence of florida is projected to be around 3 mm/year, while sea level rise is projected 10 mm/year. Hiding under the bed is not needed, but figuring out what the biggest risk is shouldn't be too difficult ;)
-
. . .the coastal subsidence of florida is projected to be around 3 mm/year, while sea level rise is projected 10 mm/year.
And scientist Erlich projected the termination of humanity by the year 2000. Yet here we are in 2018 arguing on LuLa about projections.
-
And scientist Erlich projected the termination of humanity by the year 2000. Yet here we are in 2018 arguing on LuLa about projections.
But you claimed that coastal subsidence was more important than sea level rise, which is totally bogus.
The only one needing to hide under the bed is you, to hide the shame of presenting wrong information and now hiding behind a strawman instead of being able to admit you were wrong.
-
Better get your glasses checked, Pieter, then re-read what I said. I didn't make a comparison.
-
Better get your glasses checked, Pieter, then re-read what I said. I didn't make a comparison.
Erlich's projection was based on a single factor, population growth, which he thought would outstrip resources. Similarly, the Club of Rome (I think that was the group; too lazy to Google) looked at impending shortages of a number of different raw materials and none of their predictions came true. It was maybe 15-20 years ago that the world was running out of oil and then fracking released large quantities of both oil and gas within the US such that we are not dependent on outsiders for the most part. I think climate change is different from the above cases as there is a lot of documentation about what is going on and most of the predictions I've seen appear to be scientifically plausible. This is not to say that any future effects cannot be remediated, they can but in a lot of areas I don't see anything happening. The squabbling political parties don't seem to understand that it's in the countries best interest to work towards solutions rather than endlessly complaining that one side is right and one is wrong.
As was noted in one of the earlier posts, perhaps the private market makes decisions for us. When homeowners cannot get 'affordable' property casualty insurance that will make the pain more real than it is.
-
Right, John. It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate. If you dig out your historical geology books you'll find this isn't something the world has never seen before. And, golly, it's gotten warmer in a single generation? The only possible solution is to hide under the bed.
Russ, you are correct that there is subsidence and sea rising, but while the rising rate may be slow us inlanders, to islanders that rate of change means something else:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/14/our-country-will-vanish-pacific-islanders-bring-desperate-message-to-australia
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/world/asia/climate-change-kiribati.html
If communities are going to be inundated within a generation or sooner, I would say that is not slow. So it seems hiding under the bed is not an option for some folks. But I have to ask, what would you consider to be an environmental long term detrimental change to your community? Where I live, it is drought. Now, if it's just hard luck for those islanders, then what does the lack of water mean for the entire Southwest, which is growing at an undeniably fast rate? Well, okay, there is sand enough here into which the country can bury its collective head. :D
-
Omer, since your profile is a total N/A I don't have a clue where your island might be. Sorry to hear you're in trouble, but if you make your home on a low-lying island you've got to expect losses in some seasons. I hope you'll be able to solve the problem. Where I live the problem is hurricanes. Where I lived before, the problem was tornadoes. Before that the problem was war.
-
Erlich's projection was based on a single factor, population growth, which he thought would outstrip resources. Similarly, the Club of Rome (I think that was the group; too lazy to Google) looked at impending shortages of a number of different raw materials and none of their predictions came true. It was maybe 15-20 years ago that the world was running out of oil and then fracking released large quantities of both oil and gas within the US such that we are not dependent on outsiders for the most part. I think climate change is different from the above cases as there is a lot of documentation about what is going on and most of the predictions I've seen appear to be scientifically plausible. This is not to say that any future effects cannot be remediated, they can but in a lot of areas I don't see anything happening. The squabbling political parties don't seem to understand that it's in the countries best interest to work towards solutions rather than endlessly complaining that one side is right and one is wrong.
As was noted in one of the earlier posts, perhaps the private market makes decisions for us. When homeowners cannot get 'affordable' property casualty insurance that will make the pain more real than it is.
Exactly, Alan. I don't think I've ever said climate change couldn't be true. Global temperature was rising for many years. Lately it's quit doing that, possibly not for long. What I did say and keep saying is that we simply don't have the tools to know what's going to happen next. As far as the private market making decisions for us, that's the way it should be. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is far more intelligent than a government hand.
-
Omer, since your profile is a total N/A I don't have a clue where your island might be. Sorry to hear you're in trouble, but if you make your home on a low-lying island you've got to expect losses in some seasons. I hope you'll be able to solve the problem. Where I live the problem is hurricanes. Where I lived before, the problem was tornadoes. Before that the problem was war.
Tucson, Arizona. Might as well be an island though instead of water rising, it is disappearing. But there’s plenty of sand.
-
The conservative global warming deniers are now getting bit on their economic asses in Miami -- according to the Wall Street Journal, waterfront and near-waterfront houses are now being discounted because of slowly rising oceans and increasing instances of flooding. This is the free market doing it, not CNN.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-fears-reshape-miamis-housing-market-1524225600
There are other long-term real-world non-political tests of global warming as well. Since I first bought a home in Minnesota's St. Croix Valley in 1978, the gardening temperature/growing season guidelines for that specific area have gone up a full notch under the USDA guidelines. We have earlier and warmer springs, slightly shorter and warmer winters (though still cold) and this change has happened in a single generation.
IMHO, and I offer this thought with complete and humble charity, anyone who denies global warming is stupid.
John,
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of this Climate Change debate. The terms 'Climate Change denier', or 'Global Warming denier' contribute to this confusion.
A climate Change denier is a person who knows absolutely nothing about climate. If people reading this are genuinely interested in the subject, the first fundamental piece of knowledge they need to acquire, as a starting point, is the fact that climate is always changing. It always has changed in the past, and will continue to change in the future.
The real challenges that mankind face, with regard to climate change, is in adapting to such changes, learning from history, and organizing our affairs in a way that protects us from the extreme weather events that have occurred in the past and can be expected to occur again in the future, regardless of slight changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Unfortunately, adapting, acting sensibly, and learning from history, is often too difficult and too expensive. It requires lots of cheap energy, a fair, egalitarian, and educated society, an efficient economy, and more politicians who have a background in science and engineering and who can explain to the population why certain measures that might appear unpopular are in fact in the best, long-term, interests of the nation.
The idea that we can control our climate by changing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, is ludicrous. However, I do understand that it's a very politicaly useful meme which can be used to protect the reputation of those in power.
For example, if the local government in a particular area allows people to build houses in a location that has been frequently flooded in the past, without imposing building regulations that require such houses to be protected from such floods and raised above the known levels of previous flood events in the area, then the government is clearly incompetent.
When the next flood occurs, perhaps, very sadly, causing a few deaths as well as massive property destruction, the media will tend to describe the event as the worst flood in living memory, or the worst flood ever recorded, or a once-in-a-century flood, and will reinforce the meme that this is yet another example of the effects of human-induced climate change due to rising CO2 levels.
This process, I admit, has a beneficial psychological effect. It protects the government from an angry backlash from the citizens affected - "Why didn't you build more flood-mitigation dams during the last drought, knowing that the drought would eventually end and be followed by periods of heavy rain?" and "Why did you allow us to build houses in a flood plain without informing us of the history of flooding in the area and explaining the need for elevated housing and changing the building regulations accordingly?'
Those of us who have an inquiring mind and take the trouble to research the history of flooding in the area, by examining the data available in agencies such as the Bureau of Meteorology, which might go back a hundred years or more, and other research organizations which provide proxy data going back several centuries, usually discover that the latest flooding disaster was nowhere near the worst flood ever recorded.
A similar situation applies to the other types of extreme weather events, such as hurricane and droughts. It's very rare that any extreme weather event in modern times is actually the worst on record, in the general area, although it can sometimes happen, but probably because there are no reliable records that back far enough.
Whilst the delusion that using CO2 levels as a control knob to make the climate more beneficial, might be psychologically comforting for many people who are ignorant of the historical record of past weather events in their area, there will likely be negative effects to this delusion, such as increased electricity costs, which are currently an issue in Australia, and a tendency to continue to build inadequate housing with the false expectation that future reductions in CO2 levels will significantly reduce the severity and frequency of extreme weather events.
The reason I'm bothering to write all this, is because I genuinely feel compassion for future generations who will bear the consequences of such mismanagement.
-
Ray, that is a very sensible post which should be submitted to some well-read magazine, like Time, Guardian or National Geographic.
-
Ray, that is a very sensible post which should be submitted to some well-read magazine, like Time, Guardian or National Geographic.
Thanks, Les.
The issue of sea level rises is quite fascinating, for those with an inquiring mind. There are many islands which are gradually sinking, where the inhabitants erroneously confuse the sinking with sea level rises due to global warming.
There are places where the sinking is less than the sea level rise, and simply amplifies the sea-level rise, and yet other places where the sinking is greater than the average sea-level rise and amplifies that rise even more. The city of Bangkok in Thailand is an example of a place which is sinking at a greater rate than the average sea-level rise.
But what really fascinates me is the following story in Scientific American. Do you Americans consider Scientific American to be a reliable source?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/
"For the past couple of decades, the oceans have been steadily rising. Each year, sea-level increases by about 3 millimeters, a constant and ominous creep responding to climate warming.
Scientists have been measuring this rise from satellites since 1993, using instruments called altimeters. But for an 18-month period that began in the middle of 2010, something surprising happened. Instead of rising, sea levels fell."
The fascinating part is the reason offered for this unusual fall in sea levels.
"Where did the water go?
In most cases, though, water that falls on land eventually drains into the ocean. Even if a whole lot of rain fell in South America's Amazon, for example, it could slow sea-level rise for only about a couple of months, as it slowly made its way to the sea.
So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia."
Wow! God bless Australia. ;D
"Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It's usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake.
From 2010 to 2011, enough rain fell on Australia to fill the lower part of the lake almost completely, and the upper portion at least 75 percent. Australia got about a foot of rain more than normal over that period, said Fasullo.
The continent stored that excess water for long enough to change global sea levels."
Wow! God bless Australia again! ;D
If this is true, then the solution to rising sea levels is plain. Encourage every country, especially countries with arid regions, to build more dams to reduce the amount of water flowing out to the sea. Such water can also be used to irrigate arid regions, help reforestation and increase food production. What a sensible solution.
I'm very humble, but I won't object if you all nominate me for a Nobel Prize. ;D
-
another good idea which should improve your chances for the Nobel Prize.
BTW, here in Ontario, we have a small village called Nobel. It is in the Municipality of McDougall in the District of Parry Sound near Georgian Bay, a gorgeous recreational body of water - actually a part of Lake Huron. The Nobel village is named after Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite.
-
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that some 96,075 diseases caused by bites by mosquitoes, ticks and fleas were reported in 2016, up from 27,388 in 2004, in an analysis of data from the CDC’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Infections in 2016 went up 73 percent from 2015, reflecting the emergence of Zika, which is transmitted by mosquitoes and can cause severe birth defects. Zika was the most common disease borne by ticks, mosquitoes and fleas reported in 2016, with 41,680 cases reported, followed by Lyme disease, with 36,429 cases, almost double the number in 2004. The increases may be a result of climate change, with increased temperatures and shorter winters boosting populations of ticks, mosquitoes and other disease-carrying creatures known as “vectors.”
“It enables these ticks to expand to new areas. Where there are ticks, there comes diseases,” said Lyle Petersen, director of the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases. Warmer summer temperatures also tend to bring outbreaks of mosquito-borne illnesses, Petersen said. While Zika stood out as the latest emerging threat in the report, it also showed a long-term increase in cases of tick-borne Lyme disease, which can attack the heart and nervous system if left untreated.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-insectillness/tick-mosquito-borne-infections-surge-in-united-states-cdc-idUSKBN1I2423
-
Right, John. It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate.
Better get your glasses checked, Pieter, then re-read what I said. I didn't make a comparison.
So the comparison you made was that the sea is rising slower than the land is sinking.
So no need to check my glasses, because the "projections" I found say the exact opposite and are contrary to the "projections" you seem to have read.
Actually I have not been able to find any "projections" that support your statement, which is why I called it bogus and making snarky remarks isn't going to hide the misinformation you posted here. I think that place under the bed must start to become more and more attractive for you.
-
John,
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of this Climate Change debate. The terms 'Climate Change denier', or 'Global Warming denier' contribute to this confusion.
A climate Change denier is a person who knows absolutely nothing about climate. If people reading this are genuinely interested in the subject, the first fundamental piece of knowledge they need to acquire, as a starting point, is the fact that climate is always changing. It always has changed in the past, and will continue to change in the future.
I admire the creativity with which you make up utter crap.
A "denier" is also someone who does (more or less) know the facts, but yet insists on denying the consequences that logically follow from that knowledge. The motivation for doing so can be diverse. It becomes worse if he/she then deliberately spreads information that contradicts his/her own knowledge. So your framing of a denier is incomplete at best, deliberately deceptive at worst. One could label such information as fake news/information.
In addition, nobody claimed that the climate doesn't change, because obviously, it is constantly changing, as it's adapting to changed forcings. So you created a strawman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument to build your reasoning on. Why?
Don't know about you, but we are discussing the consequences of MAN-MADE climate change, formally known as anthropogenic climate change. If you want to discuss climate change in general, it's probably more useful to start your own thread about that uncontested situation.
Even though it's some 5 years old, the following lecture is still a very good summary of the scientific view on anthropogenic climate change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo&feature=youtu.be&t=447
more recent updates by science are still pointing in the same direction, so besides discussions, there remains actual work to be done. And, the longer we postpone addressing it, fixing the situation becomes more urgent and more costly as time is being wasted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
[...]The real challenges that mankind face, with regard to climate change, is in adapting to such changes, learning from history, and organizing our affairs in a way that protects us from the extreme weather events that have occurred in the past and can be expected to occur again in the future, regardless of slight changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
That's wasted effort if we do not at the same time address the causes. There's little use in mopping while the tap is still running and flooding the floor.
Unfortunately, adapting, acting sensibly, and learning from history, is often too difficult and too expensive.[/quote]
It will only get more expensive as we wait and do little or nothing.
The idea that we can control our climate by changing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, is ludicrous. However, I do understand that it's a very politicaly useful meme which can be used to protect the reputation of those in power.
Here you go again, more BS.
It has become generally accepted, since the middle of last century (so please keep up with the rest), that CO2 is the main contributor to the rapid (more rapid than before) rise of global temperature. The fact that the low percentage of CO2 in the mix that makes up our atmosphere can cause such an effect as a feedback force, should be cause for extra concern. So why you'd want to suggest that a low percentage is of low concern escapes me. Unless you want to deny the heat-trapping effects of CO2, which is measurable (and has been known since the middle of the 19th century) and is not a mindless meme.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So the comparison you made was that the sea is rising slower than the land is sinking.
So no need to check my glasses, because the "projections" I found say the exact opposite and are contrary to the "projections" you seem to have read.
Actually I have not been able to find any "projections" that support your statement, which is why I called it bogus and making snarky remarks isn't going to hide the misinformation you posted here. I think that place under the bed must start to become more and more attractive for you.
Pieter, I thought it might be your glasses, but now I have to suggest a thorough eye exam. Once your vision is restored and you re-read what I said you'll see that I didn't make any comparisons. I said that the coast is subsiding and that the water is rising. I pointed out that the rise of the water is very small, which it is. I didn't say anything about the magnitude of subsidence.
Good luck with the ophthalmologist.
Almost forgot to ask about the "projections" you found. Were those by a guy named Erlich? I'm kind of surprised I haven't read any stuff by him on the subject of climate change. As far as I know he's still around, since he's two years younger than I am.
-
John,
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of this Climate Change debate. The terms 'Climate Change denier', or 'Global Warming denier' contribute to this confusion.
A climate Change denier is a person who knows absolutely nothing about climate. If people reading this are genuinely interested in the subject, the first fundamental piece of knowledge they need to acquire, as a starting point, is the fact that climate is always changing. It always has changed in the past, and will continue to change in the future.
The real challenges that mankind face, with regard to climate change, is in adapting to such changes, learning from history, and organizing our affairs in a way that protects us from the extreme weather events that have occurred in the past and can be expected to occur again in the future, regardless of slight changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Unfortunately, adapting, acting sensibly, and learning from history, is often too difficult and too expensive. It requires lots of cheap energy, a fair, egalitarian, and educated society, an efficient economy, and more politicians who have a background in science and engineering and who can explain to the population why certain measures that might appear unpopular are in fact in the best, long-term, interests of the nation.
The idea that we can control our climate by changing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, is ludicrous. However, I do understand that it's a very politicaly useful meme which can be used to protect the reputation of those in power.
For example, if the local government in a particular area allows people to build houses in a location that has been frequently flooded in the past, without imposing building regulations that require such houses to be protected from such floods and raised above the known levels of previous flood events in the area, then the government is clearly incompetent.
When the next flood occurs, perhaps, very sadly, causing a few deaths as well as massive property destruction, the media will tend to describe the event as the worst flood in living memory, or the worst flood ever recorded, or a once-in-a-century flood, and will reinforce the meme that this is yet another example of the effects of human-induced climate change due to rising CO2 levels.
This process, I admit, has a beneficial psychological effect. It protects the government from an angry backlash from the citizens affected - "Why didn't you build more flood-mitigation dams during the last drought, knowing that the drought would eventually end and be followed by periods of heavy rain?" and "Why did you allow us to build houses in a flood plain without informing us of the history of flooding in the area and explaining the need for elevated housing and changing the building regulations accordingly?'
Those of us who have an inquiring mind and take the trouble to research the history of flooding in the area, by examining the data available in agencies such as the Bureau of Meteorology, which might go back a hundred years or more, and other research organizations which provide proxy data going back several centuries, usually discover that the latest flooding disaster was nowhere near the worst flood ever recorded.
A similar situation applies to the other types of extreme weather events, such as hurricane and droughts. It's very rare that any extreme weather event in modern times is actually the worst on record, in the general area, although it can sometimes happen, but probably because there are no reliable records that back far enough.
Whilst the delusion that using CO2 levels as a control knob to make the climate more beneficial, might be psychologically comforting for many people who are ignorant of the historical record of past weather events in their area, there will likely be negative effects to this delusion, such as increased electricity costs, which are currently an issue in Australia, and a tendency to continue to build inadequate housing with the false expectation that future reductions in CO2 levels will significantly reduce the severity and frequency of extreme weather events.
The reason I'm bothering to write all this, is because I genuinely feel compassion for future generations who will bear the consequences of such mismanagement.
Thanks, Ray, for what''s probably the most sensible post on this thread.
-
It has become generally accepted, since the middle of last century. . .
Cheers,
Bart
And that, of course, proves the point. Generally accepted by whom, Bart? By left-wing politicians posing as scientists?
-
Really, Les? What do you think is going to attack our lives? Surely you're not talking about global warming, which essentially has been in abeyance for the past fifteen years, and even has begun receding during the past two or so. Maybe you're talking about an asteroid strike.
Should point out that the article you linked too re the 15 years was written in 2013........
Jim
-
Should point out that the article you linked too re the 15 years was written in 2013........
Jim
Hi Jim. I don't remember linking to an article re 15 years. I remember linking to an article re cooling for the past two years. Are you talking about the horse-hockey stick references?
-
Pieter, I thought it might be your glasses, but now I have to suggest a thorough eye exam. Once your vision is restored and you re-read what I said you'll see that I didn't make any comparisons. I said that the coast is subsiding and that the water is rising. I pointed out that the rise of the water is very small, which it is. I didn't say anything about the magnitude of subsidence.
Good luck with the ophthalmologist,.
I admire your way of trying to weasle out of this one, albeit unsuccessfull. It's really funny to see you cringe and try to be smart when you're caught on posting bullshit.
You are right you didn't specifically mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence, but logically the only conclusion from your words can be that you believe it's bigger than the water rise.
Alan and John talk about the risk of additional flooding due to the sea level rising
You then say "It's called coastal subsidence. In other words, the land is sinking. Yes, the sea is rising too, but at a very slow rate."
So you first offer a different explanation for the effect they talk about and then say they the effect they mention is there albeit very small. If you really thought there was a chance that coastal subsidence would have been equal or less than the sea level rise this sentence doesn't make any sense and you would have written it differently.
Hope it's not too dusty under your bed, and I have no need to see an ophthalmologist, my eyes as well as my comprehension skills are perfectly fine. It's gorgeous weather here and I think I'll go out and take some photographs. Much better than wasting my time here.
-
Global warming's okay, eh Alan, but not global cooling?
Here are a couple references the global warmists might want to see. There are many more out there. Yes, I know, there's all sorts of "scientific evidence" on both sides of the question, including the horse hockey stick that sort of blew up in the faces of those who invented it.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/global-warming-most-dishonest-year-on-record/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
It was the second of these two links Russ. The second one was written in 2013
Jim
-
For the experiment to be scientifically sound, one would need to recruit a large number of twins and conduct the experiment over a number of decades, perhaps 30 or 40 or even 50 years. If, during the course of the long experiment, it was observed that a few of the twin pairs diverged significantly in their lifestyles, one of them perhaps not physically exercising nearly as much as the other, or experiencing a lot more emotional stress than the other, then those twins would have to be excluded from the results.
I don't think the above study is useful without more information about the lifestyles of the people included in the results, and details about how the information was collected. For example, what does a consumption of 355 kg of dairy products include. If person 'A' drinks one litre of milk per day, and takes no other dairy products, that still amounts to a yearly consumption of approximately 365 kg of dairy products. If person 'B' eats 1 kg of cheese day every day, and no other dairy products, then that represents a lot more energy than a litre of milk, but would still be described as a yearly consumption of 365 kg of dairy products.
There is also a significant anomaly in the above results you've quoted. Sweden with an annual dairy consumption of 355 kg and 802 bone fractures, and Finland with a slightly higher consumption of dairy products, 361 kg, yet a very significantly lower number of bone fractures, only 440.
That seems to me a very clear example that other significant factors are involved, which are not addressed in the study. Perhaps the major factor not addressed is the overweight and obesity problem.
The following study shows there is a strong connection between obesity, or simply being overweight, and the need for hip or knee replacement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267551/
If you were to check the overweight and obesity percentages in those countries listed in your study, which have low rates of hip replacement which seem to correlate with low consumption of dairy products, you'd probably find the obesity rates are significantly lower than they are in Western countries, although obesity seems to be on the rise everywhere.
I would eliminate the obesity factor from this example. From my travels in seventies, as I recollect, both Finns and Swedes seemed about equally proportionate (although that could have changed in the recent years). A more probable reason to explain this anomaly could be that Finns drink more than their neighbours in other Nordic countries. Alcohol breaks down milk proteins and binds calcium from milk. Just my early morning hypothesis.
-
That's wasted effort if we do not at the same time address the causes. There's little use in mopping while the tap is still running and flooding the floor.
Bart,
So I take it that you are in denial about the historical data which shows that extreme weather events, as great as, and often greater than, the current extreme weather events, have occurred in the past?
It certainly seems to be the case, but I guess you will deny that you are in a state of denial. ;D
-
I would eliminate the obesity factor from this example. From my travels in seventies, as I recollect, both Finns and Swedes seemed about equally proportionate (although that could have changed in the recent years). A more probable reason to explain this anomaly could be that Finns drink more than their neighbours in other Nordic countries. Alcohol breaks down milk proteins and binds calcium from milk. Just my early morning hypothesis.
Yes. Obesity and being overweight is just one factor in contributing to bone fractures. There are probably numerous other factors, including excessive alcohol consumption.
-
I admire your way of trying to weasle out of this one, albeit unsuccessfull. It's really funny to see you cringe and try to be smart when you're caught on posting bullshit.
You are right you didn't specifically mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence, but logically the only conclusion from your words can be that you believe it's bigger than the water rise.
Come on, Pieter, seems to me that even a blind man ought to be able to do better than this.
Yes, I'm right. I didn't mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence because I don't know anything about the magnitude of the subsidence. I don't know about the magnitude of the rise in water level either, but since the place hasn't yet sunk into the ocean I can conclude that it's pretty small. As even Alan admitted "We don't have reliable sea level data going back as many years as we do average temperatures." In fact, we don't have enough data to make reasonable projections about any of this. But that's not gonna stop liars from figuring.
-
It was the second of these two links Russ. The second one was written in 2013
Jim
Okay, Jim. Then it's pretty obvious that instead of temperatures not rising for fifteen years we have to conclude that they haven't risen for twenty years.
-
Okay, Jim. Then it's pretty obvious that instead of temperatures not rising for fifteen years we have to conclude that they haven't risen for twenty years.
?
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/globalT_1880-1920base.pdf
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I wouldn't recommend hiding under one's bed. Given the rising sea-levels, one might drown.
I'd recommend:
a.) start contributing to a solution that addresses the causes, and
b.) seek higher ground or build better defenses against the predicted water levels
c.) do both of the above, and doing it sooner will be less costly than doing it later.
-
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I wouldn't recommend hiding under one's bed. Given the rising sea-levels, one might drown.
I'd recommend:
a.) start contributing to a solution that addresses the causes, and
b.) seek higher ground or build better defenses against the predicted water levels
c.) do both of the above, and doing it sooner will be less costly than doing it later.
a.) Pretty hard to find a "solution" that addresses the causes when we don't know what the causes are. We're guessing the cause is CO2 but there's a ton of evidence that makes that assumption questionable at best.
b.) As far as building better defenses against predicted water levels is concerned, it's pretty hard to do that effectively when the "predicted" water levels are based on questionable assumptions and questionable computer algorithms.
c.) The sooner we do these foolish things the more money we'll waste.
And not least of all, d.) Try hiding under your bed, Bart. It'll make life in this terribly hazardous environment easier.
-
a.) Pretty hard to find a "solution" that addresses the causes when we don't know what the causes are. We're guessing the cause is CO2 but there's a ton of evidence that makes that assumption questionable at best.
Yes we do and yes there is! Expect for fact deniers. :-[
-
Okay Andrew, I'll bite. What should I "expect" from you fact deniers? More links to BS sites?
-
Okay, Jim. Then it's pretty obvious that instead of temperatures not rising for fifteen years we have to conclude that they haven't risen for twenty years.
Is that true? I don't have the data on that - or are you just making that up?
Jim
-
I don't know whether or not it's true any more than the people posting links to BS from the other side of the argument do. Point is, it's as likely to be true as any of the other crap you see on here. And that's the whole point. Nobody really knows anything about this subject. You can be sure that any "confirmed" data comes from a political point of view. If it comes from a "scientist" it's coming from a politically biased "scientist," or at least a scientist hoping it's true so he can get his name in lights.
-
Okay Andrew, I'll bite.
You didn't, you simply continue to deny the scientific facts; not a new tactic.
“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one” - George Washington
And that's the whole point. Nobody really knows anything about this subject.
Speak for yourself!
-
I don't know whether or not it's true any more than the people posting links to BS from the other side of the argument do. Point is, it's as likely to be true as any of the other crap you see on here. And that's the whole point. Nobody really knows anything about this subject. You can be sure that any "confirmed" data comes from a political point of view. If it comes from a "scientist" it's coming from a politically biased "scientist," or at least a scientist hoping it's true so he can get his name in lights.
Because there may be doubt about a theory - doesn't mean just plucking anything out of the air and stating it, carries just as much weight. I'm actually quite cynical about politics and 'experts'. I do happen to think though that if humans tackle some of the suggested causes of Global Warming - we might just end up with a better planet. The remedies seem unlikely to cause much harm if we are wrong. If the 'scientists' are right, we may just reduce some of the negative impact. To say nobody knows anything about the subject is like saying nobody knows anything about medicine. There is so much we do not know about medicine, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to act on what we think is the right course now.
I'm not sure why you started this thread - especially as the linked article was from a tabloid news outlet (mostly click-bait) and four and a half years out of date anyway. Is it just to stir up some ill feeling between the so called Looney Liberal Left and the good old gun-toting righteous Right.
Jim
-
I'm not sure why you started this thread - especially as the linked article was from a tabloid news outlet (mostly click-bait) and four and a half years out of date anyway. Is it just to stir up some ill feeling between the so called Looney Liberal Left and the good old gun-toting righteous Right.
Jim
Bingo! Easier than working on one's 'photography skills'.
-
Because there may be doubt about a theory - doesn't mean just plucking anything out of the air and stating it, carries just as much weight.
Jim
In this case the theories about climate mostly are politically based and therefore are weightless. We probably could use them for transportation without contributing CO2 or anything else to the atmosphere. One thing we certainly shouldn't do is spend taxpayer money on them. If individuals want to spend their own money, more power to them. Barnum made a point about that.
-
And here is an article that explores why the global temperature is not coming down, even fast enough to stay at no more than 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04931-6
Lot's of progress on renewable energy, but even more needs to be done to reduce the use of fossil fuel.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. to avoid dead links, I've added a PDF of the article as an attachment. It's an article worth reading. It's not a scientific peer-reviewed paper, but it's not in just some other tabloid either.
-
Now now, boys (it is only boys, isn't it?), let's avoid insulting each other and play nicely.
We can confine argument to the certainties of science because, as Hilaire Belloc put it
Oh let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
Jeremy
-
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it ...” Neil deGrasse Tyson
-
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it ...” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Not true only of science, of course. There's a story about a nuclear physicist - it has various attributions, one to Niels Bohr - who kept a horseshoe on his door. When a friend said "surely you don't believe in that nonsense about luck", the physicist replied, "Of course not! But I've heard that it works, even if you don't believe in it".
Jeremy
-
Not true only of science, of course. There's a story about a nuclear physicist - it has various attributions, one to Niels Bohr - who kept a horseshoe on his door. When a friend said "surely you don't believe in that nonsense about luck", the physicist replied, "Of course not! But I've heard that it works, even if you don't believe in it".
Jeremy
Does it work? Where's the proof (scientific or otherwise) that it works? Lots of scientists believe in god; zero proof it (he/she) exists. And then there are scientists like Stephen Hawking who was an Atheist (dog bless his soul or is that sole). :D
-
And here is an article that explores why the global temperature is not coming down, even fast enough to stay at no more than 1.5–2°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04931-6
Lot's of progress on renewable energy, but even more needs to be done to reduce the use of fossil fuel.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. to avoid dead links, I've added a PDF of the article as an attachment. It's an article worth reading. It's not a scientific peer-reviewed paper, but it's not in just some other tabloid either.
Hi Bart,
Your post reminds me of a skit I once watched (and unfortunately was involved in) at a long ago gathering in the officers' club. One guy pointed out that since we started flying, weather forecasting has improved 100%. It used to be accurate 2% of the time. Nowadays (in the middle sixties) it's accurate 4% of the time. To those of us who were flying that seemed about right.
Now it's improved a lot more than that. Of course it depends on where you are, but here in central Florida the forecasters can give me a pretty accurate picture of what the weather's going to be like by the end of the week (it's now Wednesday), and a fairly accurate picture of what the weekend's going to be like. But next week, forget it. For that, it's pretty close to what we used to call a WAG.
The climate folks are long-range weather forecasters. We call that kind of thing "climate." And you're telling me we (they) can forecast where global temperatures will be more than 80 years from now?
All I can say to that is ;D :D ;) :o ;D
-
The climate folks are long-range weather forecasters. We call that kind of thing "climate." And you're telling me we (they) can forecast where global temperatures will be more than 80 years from now?
I'm sorry that I have to repeat myself. Weather is not climate.
So your analogy is flawed.
We know that the average global temperature on Earth is higher than on the moon (while both are at approx. the same distance from the sun), and it's due to (the (side)effects of mostly) CO2 and water vapor which trap the heat that the sun produces when it heats up the earth's surface. Without CO2 and water vapor, almost all that heat would be radiated out back into space at night.
If you can accept that simple fact (which can be verified and quantified in a laboratory, because it's basic physics, and that works the same everywhere), it can also be calculated what amount of additional heat will be trapped when we produce a given cumulative excess of CO2. Basically, the only uncertainty is how much CO2 humanity will allow cumulating before we come to our senses. If we could know that amount for certain, the rest would be relatively straightforward.
Humanity is the main unpredictable factor, and this thread is proof of how irrational some of us can be in spite of the consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's been real. I've enjoyed this thread very much. I have to thank those who've swallowed the climate change party line whole hog and who've been dependable and hard-working pinsetters for this game. They're the obverse of the "deniers." The antonym of "deniers" is something like "accepters," and that comes close to their relationship to the party line, but I think, considering that "deniers" is intended to be a putdown that a better word for those who aren't "deniers" would be "gullibles."
But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.
So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YgdrhrCM8)
-
But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.
So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YgdrhrCM8)
A. That's the soundest comment you've made.
B. No, Slim Pickens absolutely did NOT sing that song at the end of Dr. Strangelove; view it again, your memory of the film, like your ideas about climate change is flawed and wrong!
-
Sorry Andrew, but one last correction for excessively literal minds. How do you know that Slim didn't sing that song on the way down? The same way you know what global temperature will be 82 years from now? You're an unusually good pinsetter.
-
Sorry Andrew, but one last correction for excessively literal minds. How do you know that Slim didn't sing that song on the way down?
Because I've seen the film dozens of times and own it! You're simply wrong, he didn't sing that song. Vera Lynn did and if you actually examined the accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) of your ideas before posting, we wouldn’t have to continue to correct you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again)
Lynn's recording is featured in the final scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove,
As for your word and intent, seems we can't take that seriously either. Seems you didn't go very far in your quest to improve your photo skills:
But it's time for me to move on and see if I can get back to photography, which I think we all agree is fun, even though we might disagree on the value of its various genres.
-
Ray, that is a very sensible post which should be submitted to some well-read magazine, like Time, Guardian or National Geographic.
The same post has been made several times in various threads on the Coffee Corner. There is not anything unique in what Ray said that he hasn't said before.
-
Yes. Obesity and being overweight is just one factor in contributing to bone fractures. There are probably numerous other factors, including excessive alcohol consumption.
Anorexia also leads to increased bone fractures.
-
Now now, boys (it is only boys, isn't it?), let's avoid insulting each other and play nicely.
We can confine argument to the certainties of science because, as Hilaire Belloc put it
Oh let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
Jeremy
It seems that this thread is deteriorating just as I predicted back in the post you and other found objectionable. this is simply not a topic that we can have a rational discussion on.
-
And to zoom in on the aspect of urgency, I'll fast-forward to the part of Prof. Richard Somerville's excellent presentation that, although somewhat dated by now (yet still accurate), also explains the part that postponement of taking corrective action will only increase the likelihood of not achieving our goals (making any effort in doing so more expensive than early/preventative action):
https://youtu.be/B4Q271UaNPo?t=1753
BTW. Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, is a world-renowned climate scientist.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Because I've seen the film dozens of times and own it! You're simply wrong, he didn't sing that song. Vera Lynn did and if you actually examined the accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) of your ideas before posting, we wouldn’t have to continue to correct you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ll_Meet_Again)
Lynn's recording is featured in the final scene of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove,
As for your word and intent, seems we can't take that seriously either. Seems you didn't go very far in your quest to improve your photo skills:
Oooo. . . That really hit your funny bone, didn't it?
I've watched the movie several times too, starting when it first came out. You seem not to want to tell us your age, so I don't know whether or not you'd have been able to do that.
But in the end, even though he was whooping and waving his cowboy hat as he left the bomb bay, you haven't the foggiest idea what he was singing the rest of the way down.
Now tell me you were able to hear him all the way to the detonation point.
One of the high points I always loved was the President's line: "You can't fight in here. This is the war room."
-
Oooo. . . That really hit your funny bone, didn't it?
You're back again?
Nothing funny about pointing out your errors.
I've watched the movie several times too, starting when it first came out. You seem not to want to tell us your age, so I don't know whether or not you'd have been able to do that.
You're probably too old to recall the actual ending and the fact that Slim Pickens absolutely doesn’t sing the song you think he did. Sorry; those are the facts.
IF you want to know my age, just ask!
But in the end, even though he was whooping and waving his cowboy hat as he left the bomb bay, you haven't the foggiest idea what he was singing the rest of the way down.
I do indeed, and again, it wasn't the song you said he did sing. In fact, he wasn't singing unless you define singing differently than others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y)
Now tell me you were able to hear him all the way to the detonation point.
What I didn't hear was what you stated I should have heard: So as Slim Pickens sang as he rode his last bronco in Dr. Strangelove: "We'll meet again"
No, that's incorrect.
Now how are those new snapshots coming? :P
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Yes, there are other references that tell us two years of global cooling don't really interfere with or cast doubt on global warming and that "studies" and "computer models" tell us this is an anomaly within a great trend, and, as usual, you can believe anything you really want to believe. But what's interesting to me is that none of this has been reported in United States' "mainstream media." Golly. Anybody want to speculate about why?
Stand back. Here comes the thunder of posters rushing to explain why this is wrong.
I'll tell you why it hasn't been widely reported - because it is claptrap.
If you go back and find the year with the lowest Arctic ice extent, in this case 2012, then anything after is by definition going to be an increase. It's just like the deniers always choosing 1998 as the baseline for global temperature measurements, because that year was (until recently) the hottest on record. So anything after seems cooler. This is the most blatant form of data cherry picking and should be called out by any decently educated high school student.
-
This is the most blatant form of data cherry picking and should be called out by any decently educated high school student.
Agreed, but which apparently is already a challenge for several 'adults'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just came home from the library watching the Before The Flood movie by National Geographic, directed by Martin Scorsese and narrated by Lonardo DiCaprio about the effect of the pollution and climate change. Very powerful film, with a dramatic footage and a lot of pertinent information. The movie is available on iTunes, Amazon, and Google Play.
https://www.beforetheflood.com
I wish, I'd remember and could quote all information from the movie, but I'm still replaying it in my mind. Very pointedly, the presentation ended with this caption - "It's Up To All Of Us". I think, most of the participants in this discussion thread understand and are aware of the effects of causes and effects of the climate change, but they still may find the movie worthwhile to watch.
I'd like to thank you Russ for starting this discussion, and if the pictures of dying coral reffs, melting glaciers, disappearing forests, and floods in Miami don't alarm you, there is one more not so obvious aspect of the climate change, seen also by Pentagon and that is The National Security threat.
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-threatens-national-security-says-pentagon
-
The same post has been made several times in various threads on the Coffee Corner. There is not anything unique in what Ray said that he hasn't said before.
Exactamente. I remember many of Ray's posts about the lack of planning for homes in the flood areas.
For example, if the local government in a particular area allows people to build houses in a location that has been frequently flooded in the past, without imposing building regulations that require such houses to be protected from such floods and raised above the known levels of previous flood events in the area, then the government is clearly incompetent.
When the next flood occurs, perhaps, very sadly, causing a few deaths as well as massive property destruction, the media will tend to describe the event as the worst flood in living memory, or the worst flood ever recorded, or a once-in-a-century flood, and will reinforce the meme that this is yet another example of the effects of human-induced climate change due to rising CO2 levels.
This process, I admit, has a beneficial psychological effect. It protects the government from an angry backlash from the citizens affected - "Why didn't you build more flood-mitigation dams during the last drought, knowing that the drought would eventually end and be followed by periods of heavy rain?" and "Why did you allow us to build houses in a flood plain without informing us of the history of flooding in the area and explaining the need for elevated housing and changing the building regulations accordingly?'
A similar situation applies to the other types of extreme weather events, such as hurricane and droughts. It's very rare that any extreme weather event in modern times is actually the worst on record, in the general area, although it can sometimes happen, but probably because there are no reliable records that back far enough.
Solving such problems and simply plan for floods or hurricanes is much easier than to address the global pollution and climate change, and it is something that can be implemented relatively easily on local or state level. For example, in Ontario, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 changed the way we plan our cities. It highlighted the need for water management and for restricting building on flood plains. It prompted Ontario to strengthen the Conservation Authorities Act to enable watershed planning and land acquisition for flood control and recreation.
Regrettably, sometimes it's important to repeat the information to let it sink in. I have done it too, on occassions. For instance, pointing out the outdated and misleading information on the effects of dairy in a diet. You wouldn't believe but there are people out there who won't read the latest information on this subject and cling to the old practices and myths perpetuated knowingly by dairy and pharma industries, and unknowingly even by many seasoned medical professionals.
-
Come on, Pieter, seems to me that even a blind man ought to be able to do better than this.
Yes, I'm right. I didn't mention anything about the magnitude of the subsidence because I don't know anything about the magnitude of the subsidence. I don't know about the magnitude of the rise in water level either, but since the place hasn't yet sunk into the ocean I can conclude that it's pretty small. As even Alan admitted "We don't have reliable sea level data going back as many years as we do average temperatures." In fact, we don't have enough data to make reasonable projections about any of this. But that's not gonna stop liars from figuring.
No Russ, your explanation is quite unbelievable. If you really didn't know anything about the rate of coastal subsidence your sentence in response to John and Alan doesn't make any sense. I know you are not blind (and neither am I) and write carefully so you can't get away this time. But given the fact you don't seem to be here to learn anything but just ridicule anybody who has a different opinion from yours I'm not surprized. However a post further down below is probably the (only) wise words and self reflection I have seen from you in this thread:
Nobody really knows anything about this subject.
I'll retract back to reading mode now, until I find another piece of blatent bullshit here that I can't control myself ;)
-
It seems that this thread is deteriorating just as I predicted back in the post you and other found objectionable. this is simply not a topic that we can have a rational discussion on.
No, your post was no more than a petulant demand from one who has no right to demand anything, accompanied by a confession of failure; it contained no prediction.
I have no present intention of closing the conversation which, while generally pointless and occasionally drifting into areas somewhat removed from the thrust of the topic, has been reasonably free from abuse. But I have my eye on it.
Jeremy
I want this thread closed down right now. Ray and I tried to keep this topic alive and failed. Those who were responsible for the closing of that thread should not be allowed to raise the topic again. I'm completely serious about this!
-
No, your post was no more than a petulant demand from one who has no right to demand anything, accompanied by a confession of failure; it contained no prediction.
I guess the truth sometimes hurts.
-
I'm sorry but Paul Ehrilch was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof. To believe that he is a loser because we all are alive is not giving him credit for where he really shined. OK so do you disagree with the idea of exponential growth that explains an explosion of rabbits in Australia and how bacteria grow in a petri dish? Do you not agree with density independent growth in a fluctuating environment? Yes, you do not understand the idea of demographic stochasticity and the difference of a statistical study using powerful tools. What about density dependent population growth is this also false? Proof it!
-
I'm sorry but Paul Ehrlich was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof. To believe that he is a loser because we all are alive is not giving him credit for where he really shined. OK so do you disagree with the idea of exponential growth that explains an explosion of rabbits in Australia and how bacteria grow in a petri dish? Do you not agree with density independent growth in a fluctuating environment? Yes, you do not understand the idea of demographic stochasticity and the difference of a statistical study using powerful tools. What about density dependent population growth is this also false? Proof it!
I agree that it's too easy/lazy to dismiss a work (even though it's not a peer-reviewed publication), without at least some effort and a recognition of the fact that hindsight has 20/20 vision.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Exactamente. I remember many of Ray's posts about the lack of planning for homes in the flood areas.
Solving such problems and simply plan for floods or hurricanes is much easier than to address the global pollution and climate change, and it is something that can be implemented relatively easily on local or state level. For example, in Ontario, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 changed the way we plan our cities. It highlighted the need for water management and for restricting building on flood plains. It prompted Ontario to strengthen the Conservation Authorities Act to enable watershed planning and land acquisition for flood control and recreation.
We're in general agreement here, Les, although I would like to point out that there are political and economic difficulties in addressing these very obvious issues of extreme weather events, and implementing the practical, but expensive, solutions that are possible with our advanced, modern technology.
As I see it, the problem is related to the nature of economic development which relies upon the positive advertising of products, rather than a balanced description of the facts.
No company would attempt to sell a product by mentioning its weaknesses. Likewise, most local governments are reluctant to advertise the dangers or vulnerabilities of any construction project, which might result from a recurrence of extreme weather events, because it might deter the investors and reduce the benefits of economic development in the area.
Even if a government is organizing and funding a new project, like building a road, they will likely ignore the records from other government departments, about the frequency and levels of previous flooding in the area, because raising the level of the road, in certain sections that are most prone to flooding, will increase the cost of construction.
The issue then becomes, 'Is it better to have a road which is vulnerable to flooding, or no road at all because a safe and secure road is beyond the budget?'
Generally, it seems to be accepted that unrestrained economic development for a significant period of 10 or 20 years, is worth the price of the occasional disaster from an extreme weather event, which causes a few billion dollars worth of damage to property. The reconstruction process also creates jobs.
Placing the blame on rising CO2 levels is a cop-out, but seems to be a good ploy to encourage continual economic development, especially in the renewable energy industries. ;)
Regrettably, sometimes it's important to repeat the information to let it sink in. I have done it too, on occasions. For instance, pointing out the outdated and misleading information on the effects of dairy in a diet. You wouldn't believe but there are people out there who won't read the latest information on this subject and cling to the old practices and myths perpetuated knowingly by dairy and pharma industries, and unknowingly even by many seasoned medical professionals.
I agree that it is necessary to repeat information, but also in a different way, perhaps using different analogies, in the hope that the message will get through.
However, I see the subject of the health effects of dairy products as an analogy for the complexity of climate. We've discussed other contributing factors such as obesity, excessive consumption of alcohol, and Alan mentioned anorexia as a contributing factor to bone weakness.
What we haven't discussed is the individual genetic relationship with the consumption of dairy products. Lactose intolerance is a major issue for a certain percentage of the population, and I imagine that is not an either/nor situation. There could be some people with a slight degree of lactose intolerance which they, and their doctors, are not aware of.
Personally, I'm not aware of having any degree of lactose intolerance. I did a search on the evolutionary history of dairy consumption. You might find the attached links interesting.
https://theconversation.com/do-humans-need-dairy-heres-the-science-70434
"Studies have found that if dairy is replaced in the diet by foods containing the same amount of calcium such as green leafy vegetables or soya milk fortified with calcium, the diet contains less protein, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, riboflavin, vitamins A and B12. Milk and dairy foods are also a great source of all essential amino acids which are the small protein molecules that build muscles and repair tissue damage. Obviously the protein and micronutrients could be found from other sources but obviously not without careful planning."
https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
"When a single genetic mutation first let ancient Europeans drink milk, it set the stage for a continental upheaval."
-
Generally, it seems to be accepted that unrestrained economic development for a significant period of 10 or 20 years, is worth the price of the occasional disaster from an extreme weather event, which causes a few billion dollars worth of damage to property. The reconstruction process also creates jobs.
Creating jobs to rebuild something that was destroyed is not good for an economy. People often quote this fallacy. Capital resources are being used up to re-create what basically you had before. If 1000 homes were destroyed in a flood, and you spent $300 million building new homes using 200 construction workers, you still have a 1000 homes. No more than before.
However, if there was no destruction, the $300 million would still provide 200 jobs. However, the money would be spent to build 1000 additional homes. So now you would have 2000 homes available for people to live in. Or if there was no destruction the money could be used on cancer research or global warming research. :)
Destruction of property is a loss to an economy as well as to the individuals who suffer the loss.
-
Ray, thank you for the interesting milk history links. To circumnavigate back to the causes of global climate change, it should be pointed out that farming is one of the main culprits of pollution and production of CO2 and methane gases. In USA 50% of the land, in Brasil 70% of the land is used for farming, with roughly 70% used for pastures, and the rest for feed crop cultivation.
Humanity’s appetite for meat and dairy products is having serious environmental consequences. Livestock species contribute directly and indirectly to deforestation, water pollution, air pollution, greenhouse gases, global warming, desertification, erosion and human obesity, and virtually anywhere you go in the world, the damage done by ruminants, pigs and poultry, and those who grow feed crops for them, is visible on the land. Dry and scrubby Greece, once a nation of woodlands, has gone to the goats. In Brazil, forests are falling before the advance of soybean fields, cultivated largely as beef fodder. In New Zealand, the banks of wild streams are frequently found trampled and muddied by grazers. In California, overuse of river water for agricultural use, including a million acres of water-intensive alfalfa (the state’s highest-acreage crop, used for feeding animals), has contributed to the long-term decline of wild salmon runs.
in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn, according to the Sierra Club.
Problem is, the math just doesn’t add up. We can’t eat meat at the rate we do in a sustainable world. Listen: This source claims that to feed just one omnivorous human requires more than three acres of land while all it takes to produce food for a vegan is one-sixth of an acre. And with more than seven billion people sharing the earth’s 7.68 billion acres of arable land, that would be an even split of about an acre apiece—plenty of space for growing all the food we need and enjoying what’s left for camping, backpacking, kayaking and wildlife watching (and photography - my addition) —except that habitual meat-eating omnivores are using three times their own share of space, requiring that precious wild lands be used for raising animals.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/
-
Creating jobs to rebuild something that was destroyed is not good for an economy.
Alan,
You have a point. However, if something is destroyed it would also probably not be good for the economy just to leave the ruined building where it is and move on. Hopefully, when the houses are rebuilt, they might be strengthened in some way to better resist the next extreme weather event.
Also, doesn't the economy often tend to rely upon the production of products which are not as durable as they could be, so that people will continue to buy new products. How would the car industry thrive if the cars were made significantly more durable?
People often quote this fallacy. Capital resources are being used up to re-create what basically you had before. If 1000 homes were destroyed in a flood, and you spent $300 million building new homes using 200 construction workers, you still have a 1000 homes. No more than before. However, if there was no destruction, the $300 million would still provide 200 jobs. However, the money would be spent to build 1000 additional homes. So now you would have 2000 homes available for people to live in. Or if there was no destruction the money could be used on cancer research or global warming research.
You have another point that has some merit, but it's not quite that simple. If the authorities were to impose a strict building code to ensure that all houses in a particular area could withstand all the extreme weather events that had occurred in that area during, say, the previous 100 years, then you probably wouldn't have the 1000 homes in the first place. People would move elsewhere to live and work, where houses were more affordable.
Each local government or town council wants its own economy to prosper and is in a sense competing with neighboring councils or shires to attract development.
Destruction of property is a loss to an economy as well as to the individuals who suffer the loss.
It's certainly not a loss to the construction industry. ;)
-
Ray, thank you for the interesting milk history links. To circumnavigate back to the causes of global climate change, it should be pointed out that farming is one of the main culprits of pollution and production of CO2 and methane gases. In USA 50% of the land, in Brasil 70% of the land is used for farming, with roughly 70% used for pastures, and the rest for feed crop cultivation.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/
Les,
I don't know how accurate those figures are, but it certainly seems like a huge problem. I think it's a reasonable deduction that deforestation for farming has had a greater effect on climate than increases in minuscule, trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as the claimed increase from 0.028% to 0.044% during the past 150 years or so.
However, regardless of the significance of CO2 emission on climate, it does appear to be a fact that modern farming techniques, such as tilling, tend to release from the soil the carbon that was initially stored in the soil.
https://theconversation.com/how-carbon-farming-can-help-solve-climate-change-86087
"But with the introduction of modern agricultural techniques, including the plow, soil organic matter content has dropped by half in many areas of the world, including parts of Canada. That carbon, once stored in the ground, is now found in the atmosphere and oceans as CO2 and is contributing to global warming."
Personally, I eat steaks only occasionally and pay the extra money for grass-fed beef, if and when it's available. Also, I buy only free-range eggs.
I tend to favour natural and no-till farming techniques, such as Permaculture, but once again it's the economy that rules. Monoculture is more economically efficient, although it's bad for the environment. The following article discusses the benefits of farming animals in a more natural and holistic manner.
https://treeyopermacultureedu.wordpress.com/chapter-8-soils/animal-rotation-and-tractoring/
-
I'm sorry but Paul Ehrilch was a an exceptional ecologist who backed his work with very good research and papers as proof.
Exactly the point I've been making over and over again. Research and papers don't make a proof. Every kid in college should be required to read Ehrilch's book and be reminded about how well researched it was. If there are members of the class who aren't able to get the obvious message from that exercise, they should be kicked out of school -- especially if they intended to become scientists.
-
Bering sea ice at lowest levels in history.
http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Record-ice-retreat-in-Bering-Sea-481690891.html
-
Just off the press:
Allianz Insurance in Germany stopped selling policies to coal companies in an effort to cut back the use of fossil fuels. Europe’s biggest insurance company said that it would immediately pull its coverage from single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and that it would phase all coal risks out of its business by 2040. It also said it would stop investing in companies that do not cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The move, which will apply to Allianz’s €664bn of investments, is an extension of its coal divestment policy announced in 2015. Oliver Bäte, CEO of Allianz, said: “Allianz wants to cut the biggest climate killer out of the core business over time. We are getting even more serious on global warming.”
https://www.ft.com/content/a23a6c3c-4eec-11e8-9471-a083af05aea7
-
Bering sea ice at lowest levels in history.
http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Record-ice-retreat-in-Bering-Sea-481690891.html
The article references whaling logs that go back to the mid 1800's. The data chart they reviewed of actual data was from 1978 to current. That's not "history". That's a "blip".
-
...It's certainly not a loss to the construction industry. ;)
Or to the climate change research community. :)
-
If someone is willing to talk politics with you, there are really about 3 possibilities:
1. They're simply rubes. Your racist uncle at Thanksgiving.
2. They trust you deeply, profoundly.
3. They don't really care that much about their relationship with you.
-
The article references whaling logs that go back to the mid 1800's. The data chart they reviewed of actual data was from 1978 to current. That's not "history". That's a "blip".
Still, a 30 years "blip" is much longer than the 2 year "blip" of the article linked in the OP you were so happy about (or happy for the Polar bears to be more accurate ;)).
-
Still, a 30 years "blip" is much longer than the 2 year "blip" of the article linked in the OP you were so happy about (or happy for the Polar bears to be more accurate ;)).
You could be right. But I think climate will change over a longer period than does animal behavior adapting to it. If local climate changes effect local population of animals or plants, you'll see adaptation in a few years. Otherwise the species will die out. Additionally, man effects local animal and plant populations a lot faster than earth's climate and environment.
I think the problem is that man who lives such a short life can't imagine geologic time very well. So we assume that changes that we may witness happening over a few decades or even centuries reflect a major change when they could only be minor blips and normal happenings.
I think the main issue is not whether change is happening. The question for me is that only the negatives of change are being headlined. A couple of warmer degrees might be appreciated by elderly Canadians who can't afford to vacation in Florida during the winter. An extra longer planting season would benefit farmers and consumers. Sure, flooded populated areas are a downside. But more rain may fertilize many deserts. I'd like to hear a more even balance of the pros as well as cons. That's something that we are not hearing.
-
I think the main issue is not whether change is happening.
Well change has always happened so that is indeed not the issue, but for me the main question is whether our current (over) population is changing the climate faster than normal. For me there are more signals it is than that there are signals it's just business as usual. And while slightly warmer weather can have positive side benefits like you mention history has shown that most of the time that man has changed the course of nature (knowingly or unknowingly) it has had a bunch of unforseen negative concequences which are not compensated by the advantages. But as Russ said earlier in the thread, nobody knows anything about it so it's just my hunch based on reading a whole lot of different materials about it (from both strong believers as well as strong deniers).
-
But I think climate will change over a longer period than does animal behavior adapting to it. If local climate changes effect local population of animals or plants, you'll see adaptation in a few years. Otherwise the species will die out. Additionally, man effects local animal and plant populations a lot faster than earth's climate and environment.
Adaptive change takes more like thousands of years with mammals. There great extinction of about 65 million years ago may have been due to a dramatic change in climate.
And while slightly warmer weather can have positive side benefits like you mention history has shown that most of the time that man has changed the course of nature (knowingly or unknowingly) it has had a bunch of unforseen negative concequences
Larger and more intense fires are definately a bonus where I live in California!
-
The question for me is that only the negatives of change are being headlined.
That's true. I've often wondered what it would be like if all news outlets, newspapers, TV broadcasts, and so on, were required to divide their news reportage into two sections, Good News and Bad News.
Would the Bad News programs be more popular? Is there perhaps some psychological need in the general populace to hear Bad News most of the time? Does the prevalence of Bad News make it easier for governments to control the populace, by creating a state of uneasiness about what could and does happen, often elsewhere, if you don't do as you're told.
Just speculating. ;D
-
Just off the press:
"Allianz Insurance in Germany stopped selling policies to coal companies in an effort to cut back the use of fossil fuels. Europe’s biggest insurance company said that it would immediately pull its coverage from single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, and that it would phase all coal risks out of its business by 2040. It also said it would stop investing in companies that do not cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The move, which will apply to Allianz’s €664bn of investments, is an extension of its coal divestment policy announced in 2015. Oliver Bäte, CEO of Allianz, said: “Allianz wants to cut the biggest climate killer out of the core business over time. We are getting even more serious on global warming.”
Les,
A similar situation is occuring in Australia. A massive coal mining project in Queensland, known as the Adani Carmichael coal mine, has been delayed for years due to a refusal by the four major banks in Australia to fund the project, and also a refusal by the Australian government to fund the project. Even major Chinese banks have refused to fund the project.
I would be very surprised if the project ever goes ahead.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/carr-lobbying-china-to-deny-adani-funds/news-story/338b4836b4e2ea1701753e927bef16c8
The advantages of coal-fired plants is that they provide a continuous, low cost, and reliable supply of electricity at all times, regardless of changes in weather. However, they are not efficient when they are underutilized, frequently shut down and restarted, and used merely as a back-up when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Gas-fired power plants are more efficient for that purpose. So I guess it's 'Goodbye coal!'
I have no problem personally with this. I have no shares in coal mines, and if more efficient and cleaner methods of producing electricity can be developed, then that's all to the good.
Unfortunately, the shift to renewable forms of energy does come at a cost, and that cost in Australia is 'rising electricity prices'. The issue has become so political that the Queensland Government has recently announced an annual $50 gift to all Queensland residents with an electricity bill, and a $340 gift to eligible pensioners and seniors.
Let's hope that the electricity supply is not disrupted during the next storm. All that money gifted to Queensland residents could or might have been spent on strengthening the grid system. ;)
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/qld-govt-rolls-out-50-power-bill-credit/news-story/c21a6336978cd404cc80b3401c134e26
-
Let's hope that the electricity supply is not disrupted during the next storm. All that money gifted to Queensland residents could or might have been spent on strengthening the grid system. ;)
Well, speaking about storms, this afternoon we saw severe thunderstorms in southern Ontario, with powerful winds exceeding 100 km/h.
In my neigbourhood there was no rain nor lightnings, just extremely strong winds. I would estimate that 10-20% of the houses on my street suffered roof and fence damages, including my home. According to the latest news, the intense winds have caused widespread property damage so far, along with downed trees and power lines. At least one person was killed by a falling tree, with another being rushed to hospital. A school bus with 37 kids was narrowly missed by a falling tree.
[EDIT:] 2 dead, winds over 110 km/h, 160,000 homes with power.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcYLVmxW0AAGnaF.jpg)
So even if most people are still ignoring the subject of climate change, those local weather events are getting more frequent and are certainly causing serious problems.
-
Well, speaking about storms, this afternoon we saw severe thunderstorms in southern Ontario, with powerful winds exceeding 100 km/h.
In my neigbourhood there was no rain nor lightnings, just extremely strong winds. I would estimate that 10-20% of the houses on my street suffered roof and fence damages, including my home. According to the latest news, the intense winds have caused widespread property damage so far, along with downed trees and power lines. At least one person was killed by a falling tree, with another being rushed to hospital. A school bus with 37 kids was narrowly missed by a falling tree.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcYLVmxW0AAGnaF.jpg)
This sort of event is common in Australia too. Even in places that are not normally subject to severe hurricanes, or cyclones as they are called in the Southern Hemisphere, one can have very localized storms that only affect a small area.
Part of the problem is that people often love to surround their homes with trees, within falling distance of their house. I recall the first time I bought a chain saw, about 35 years ago when living in Darwin on the northern coast of Australia. It was for the purpose of felling trees that were within falling distance of the house.
In my current situation in Queensland, I've made sure that no trees are within falling distance of my house, just in case there is a freak storm.
So even if most people are still ignoring the subject of climate change, those local weather events are getting more frequent and are certainly causing serious problems.
They might be getting more frequent in certain parts of the planet, but probably less frequent in other parts of the planet. Nature tends to create a balance.
At the risk of being accused of repetition, the latest IPCC report could not find any strong evidence that increased frequency and intensity of storms had been occurring during the previous 50 years or so, at an average, global level, although there were increases in certain specific regions.
ps. If only everyone were as sensible as me. ;D
-
So even if most people are still ignoring the subject of climate change, those local weather events are getting more frequent and are certainly causing serious problems.
>>> They might be getting more frequent in certain parts of the planet, but probably less frequent in other parts of the planet. Nature tends to create a balance.
Yes, and quite often the parts of the planet that get hit with bad stuff, have nothing to do with the actual causes, that originated in other places. Interestingly, that applies not only to the rain and winds.
-
Les, Sorry you had damage from the winds. Hope no one in your family was hurt. When I was living in NYC (Forest Hills, Queens) a few years ago, we had a microburst. Many, many trees in my neighborhood were blown down. Bricks were torn from parapets on roofs. I couldn't see past the railing on my terrace 4 feet away. It was like a miniature hurricane or tornado. Quite amazing. Never seen anything like it in my entire life.
Here's what it looked like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsiJ3z3WbhM
-
Yes, and quite often the parts of the planet that get hit with bad stuff, have nothing to do with the actual causes, that originated in other places. Interestingly, that applies not only to the rain and winds.
Not sure what you mean. Everything has a cause, or many causes, directly or indirectly. Attributing the cause to minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is the crazy part. ;D
-
Not sure what you mean. Everything has a cause, or many causes, directly or indirectly. Attributing the cause to minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is the crazy part. ;D
As you say, Ray, everything has a cause.
But often the causes are in different places than the consequences. Ranging from the tiny butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon which could hypothetically trigger a chain of events resulting in a tornado in Texas, domestic and industrial waste in Yangtzee River washing up on Australian coast, to African and Asian refugees fleeing to Europe because of actions of a country on yet another continent.
-
Les, Sorry you had damage from the winds. Hope no one in your family was hurt. When I was living in NYC (Forest Hills, Queens) a few years ago, we had a microburst. Many, many trees in my neighborhood were blown down. Bricks were torn from parapets on roofs. I couldn't see past the railing on my terrace 4 feet away. It was like a miniature hurricane or tornado. Quite amazing. Never seen anything like it in my entire life.
Here's what it looked like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsiJ3z3WbhM
Thank you for your sympathies, Alan. Fortunately, it's nice and quiet this morning, and the damage on my house is just a few rows of loose and flapping shingles, the challenge is to get it repaired before the next arrival of wind and rain. When I called this morning at 6:30am the roofing company which happens to be just 1km from my house, they told me that they had already hundreds of people calling them. I hope that because of the proximity between our locations they will put me somewhere near the top of their list, so that the roof can be fixed this weekend. Amazing how quickly the weather can change.
-
Attributing the cause to minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is the crazy part. ;D
Ray,
It's time you quit downplaying the role and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Frankly, it's kind of infantile (even with smileys), and it is in blatant contradiction with the overwhelming scientific evidence. Yes, CO2 is only 0.04 volume percent of the composition of our atmosphere. But that small amount has a huge impact on our planet and its inhabitants. Without it the average global temperature would be -23 °C (-10 F). At night the temperature would drop to -170 °C (-274 F).
CO2 also sustains life, by plants that absorb CO2 and through photosynthesis they produce Oxygen.
So, that small percentage of CO2 plays a crucial role for our planet.
The debate is not (or should not be) so much about the absolute level of CO2 (which BTW reached a record high last month **), but more about the unprecedented rate of increase which (if not controlled) will trigger tipping points that will lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral out of control.
** Last month recorded the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in recent history, and at an accelerating rate
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
Your usual rebuttal that CO2 is good for plant life, is true (that's why it is used in modest amounts in greenhouses), but you never mention that the growth effects of biomass (and weeds, insects, etc.) will be smaller than the failure of food crops due to droughts and extreme weather events. There's a net loss when it comes to food security. How convenient (and stupid) to only focus on the benefits ...
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 also cause the expanding air to contain more water vapor, which is another gas with greenhouse properties, and it complements the IR radiation absorption by CO2. The increased temperatures will also reduce the ocean's capacity of storing of the CO2, adding to yet another feedback forcing that heats up the atmosphere and the oceans. Warmer water simply cannot hold as much Carbon as cooler water, and it currently roughly takes out 40-50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans are acidifying as a result, which negatively affects marine-life (our future food-store).
Warmer water also expands, which will cause the sea-levels to rise, just like it did in the past. Warmer water also feeds weather-systems like tornadoes. Given that most of the world's economic activities are concentrated near the water (rivers/sea), for the obvious reasons of supplying dirnking water and being used in industrial processes and for transportation, and that land-levels are usually at their lowest near the shores, there will also be a tremendous cost consequence involved in protecting against the rising water levels.
The warming of waters can also change the ocean currents that are responsible for our local climates (upon which our food-production is based). The meltwater from ice, will mostly locally affect the salinity of the water, and thus disturbs the mixing of heavier saltwater and lighter colder fresh water that sets the ocean currents into motion.
And then there is the issue of injustice. The brunt of the negative consequences will be carried by the poorest parts of the world, those who do not have the financial capacity to build defenses against, or repair damages from, the negative climate effects. The ones who are causing the issues will also be hurt but, to a point, they can allocate increasing amounts of money to do damage control. It will be cheaper to spend money on prevention, than a lot more money on curative measures, again and again.
Here's another interesting summary of what we are discussing:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/)
Cheers,
Bart
-
The article references whaling logs that go back to the mid 1800's. The data chart they reviewed of actual data was from 1978 to current. That's not "history". That's a "blip".
What's wrong with whaling logs? Oh right - they show information on the ice that you wish weren't true.
But the increase in arctic ice over an entire 6 years as Russ reported is important science and not a blip, right?
-
What's wrong with whaling logs? Oh right - they show information on the ice that you wish weren't true.
But the increase in arctic ice over an entire 6 years as Russ reported is important science and not a blip, right?
Hi Peter,
Two parameters need to be considered to determine the amount of (sea-)ice. Area, and thickness.
A colder surface is mostly weather related. Since weather is not Climate, the deeper water temperature (store over a longer period) is a bit more a measure of climate, but it's still relatively short. Climate is measured in periods of at least 11 years (sunspot cycles), but often 20 or 30 years are used.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's no use, Peter. What you're dealing with is a religion. Neither facts nor reason are going to divert true believers from the fundamental articles of their faith.
-
It's no use, Peter. What you're dealing with is a religion. Neither facts nor reason are going to divert true believers from the fundamental articles of their faith.
A rare moment of introspection, Russ? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's no use, Peter. What you're dealing with is a religion. Neither facts nor reason are going to divert true believers from the fundamental articles of their faith.
It's no use Russ. What you're dealing with is a religion. Neither facts nor reason are going to divert true deniers from the fundamental articles of their faith.
Same old, same old, pot and kettle type arguments that lead nowhere.
-
Unfortunately, some people feel that they have some special, personal attribute which makes them immune to the foibles which they project onto others. In the end, they're just regressing back to the schoolyard and shouting "No, you are!".
-
It's no use, Peter. What you're dealing with is a religion. Neither facts nor reason are going to divert true believers from the fundamental articles of their faith.
This from Russ? Well, I certainly agree that the deniers have no interest in (or knowledge of) facts and reason.
-
Thank you for your sympathies, Alan. Fortunately, it's nice and quiet this morning, and the damage on my house is just a few rows of loose and flapping shingles, the challenge is to get it repaired before the next arrival of wind and rain. When I called this morning at 6:30am the roofing company which happens to be just 1km from my house, they told me that they had already hundreds of people calling them. I hope that because of the proximity between our locations they will put me somewhere near the top of their list, so that the roof can be fixed this weekend. Amazing how quickly the weather can change.
Can you put a tarp up there temporarily until the permanent fix is made? There has to be some temporary thing that can be done.
-
What's wrong with whaling logs? Oh right - they show information on the ice that you wish weren't true.
But the increase in arctic ice over an entire 6 years as Russ reported is important science and not a blip, right?
6 years is a blip. The ice age cycle runs 1000's of years and we could be still warming up from the last one.
-
Ray,
It's time you quit downplaying the role and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Frankly, it's kind of infantile (even with smileys), and it is in blatant contradiction with the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Why is it time? I agree there's an overwhelming quantity of evidence. However, I'm concerned with the quality of the evidence. By quality, I mean evidence that conforms to those fundamental requirements of the methodology of science, which, in order for certainty to be achieved, necessitates experimentation over the relevant periods of time, under controlled conditions where just one variable can be changed in order to observe the role and influence of that one variable, such as CO2, on the rest of the very complex system.
In order to get this point across I've used the analogy of our medical system and human health. Despite massive quantities of evidence on many types of drugs, natural supplements, and various diets, there is still frequent uncertainty about the long-term effects of such drugs, supplements and certain dietary ingredients.
Ask yourself, why is there this uncertainty? Do you think it might be due to the impracticality of conducting long-term experiments under controlled conditions?
Ask yourself, if a major pharmaceutical company were to experiment with a new drug in a petri dish, and deduce through computer simulations that the drug could be effective in increasing the health and longevity of humans, or cure a particular illness, would you take the drug, assuming you could get your hands on it?
If not, then why do you buy the CO2 hype?
As I'm sure you know, even when drugs have passed the fairly long period of experimentation beyond the petri dish, and beyond experimentation with mice and monkeys under very controlled conditions, and have finally been approved after experimentation with real humans, under less controlled conditions, there are often long term adverse effects which are discovered later, and the drug is removed from the market.
Yes, CO2 is only 0.04 volume percent of the composition of our atmosphere. But that small amount has a huge impact on our planet and its inhabitants. Without it the average global temperature would be -23 °C (-10 F). At night the temperature would drop to -170 °C (-274 F).
CO2 also sustains life, by plants that absorb CO2 and through photosynthesis they produce Oxygen.
So, that small percentage of CO2 plays a crucial role for our planet.
Absolutely! Without any CO2 at all, there would be no life (as we know it) on our planet, no trees or plants of any description, no wild-life and no humans. The climate and temperatures would be affected enormously.
The debate is not (or should not be) so much about the absolute level of CO2 (which BTW reached a record high last month), but more about the unprecedented rate of increase which (if not controlled) will trigger tipping points that will lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral out of control. Last month recorded the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere in recent history, and at an accelerating rate.
Any event can be described as unprecedented if one adjusts the context of the time period involved. For example, if a certain location on the planet experiences, say, 50 mm of rain in 24 hours, that could be described as unprecedented within the past year or two years, but not necessarily unprecedented in the past 5 or 10 years. If you go back far enough, there's very little that is unprecedented, regards weather and climate.
Your usual rebuttal that CO2 is good for plant life, is true (that's why it is used in modest amounts in greenhouses), but you never mention that the growth effects of biomass (and weeds, insects, etc.) will be smaller than the failure of food crops due to droughts and extreme weather events. There's a net loss when it comes to food security. How convenient (and stupid) to only focus on the benefits ...
I only mention what is either supported by sound evidence, which conforms with my high standards of the methodology of science, or which, in the absence of sound evidence, seems a reasonable and plausible deduction.
I can find no sensible reason to deduce that food crops will fail due to a very gradual rise in CO2 levels, which is why I don't mention it. Modern agriculture uses pesticides to deter insects, and chemicals such as Glyphosate to control weeds.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, say 1850, CO2 levels have risen by about 129 parts per million, or roughly a little more than 1 ppm per year, on average. Surely it must be obvious to you that an increase of 1 ppm of CO2, in any growing season, is not going to produce any observable increase in crop growth or any obervable decrease in crop growth due to an increase in insect attacks.
The benefits of enhanced crop growth occur very gradually, over many seasons. As CO2 levels increase very gradually, the benefits are hidden from year to year, or are obscured by the better application of fertilizers and more efficient farming techniques.
It is only through controlled experiments, that meet the high standards of the scientific methodology, that we are able to be certain that CO2 enhances crop growth. Those controlled environments are conducted in physical greenhouses where just one variable, CO2, can be changed.
The greenhouses can be placed in the same area so they receive the same amount of sunlight and heat. The same breed of crops can be placed in the same quality of soil, in each greenhouse, and given the same amount of water. The only difference can be the percentage of CO2 in the air within each greenhouse. We can also introduce 2 variables, CO2 and the amount of water, and learn that in water-stressed conditions, increased CO2 levels produce even greater degrees of increased growth, comparatively.
Experiments outside of greenhouses, in the natural environment where CO2 gas is wafted over crops, are less sound scientifically. They're known as FACE (Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment). I suspect it is from these experiments that the alarmist claims about increased insect attack originates.
Imagine if you were an insect nibbling on leaves, moving around continually, looking for the best food, and you were to come across an unusually rich and green part of the landscape (as a result of humans wafting CO2 over the plants), wouldn't you be overjoyed and bring all your relatives for a banquet? ;D
However, this is not how it works in normal circumstances, with very small and gradual increases in CO2 occuring. Can't you see that, Bart?
Regarding the possible failure of crops due to drought and extreme weather events, we've been through this before. The last IPCC report, in its technical summary, stated quite clearly that there was no strong evidence that drought, floods, and hurricanes, on a global scale, had been increasing during the previous 50 years. Their terminology was 'low confidence', and we spent a few posts arguing about the meaning of 'low confidence'. Let's not go through this again.
It seems reasonable to me that any global warming, for whatever reason or cause, will result in increased evaporation and increased rainfall. Of course, the increased rainfall is not going to be evenly spread across the planet. However, with sufficient energy supplies and the political motivation, we can transport water from where it's over-plentiful to where it's scarce, benefiting everyone.
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 also cause the expanding air to contain more water vapor, which is another gas with greenhouse properties, and it complements the IR radiation absorption by CO2.
Water vapor in total is a much more significant 'Greenhouse' gas than CO2 and Methane combined. If water vapor did not form clouds, we'd all be stuffed. Fortunately it does form clouds, which are very small water droplets. As the water droplets get larger, they begin to fall as rain.
The evaporation process that take place at the planet's surface has a cooling effect. The heat is carried up into the atmosphere, and when clouds form, that heat is released and carried away by winds, rather than reflected back to earth, although some of it will be reflected back to the surface. This is just one way that nature creates a balance.
The presence of the clouds, at a significant height above the surface, also has an effect of partially blocking and reflecting the heat from the sun, which is another way that nature creates a balance. This is known as the albedo effect.
The increased temperatures will also reduce the ocean's capacity of storing of the CO2, adding to yet another feedback forcing that heats up the atmosphere and the oceans. Warmer water simply cannot hold as much Carbon as cooler water, and it currently roughly takes out 40-50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans are acidifying as a result.
I see a contradiction here. If the oceans release CO2 due to warming, wouldn't that also reduce acidification? Isn't this yet another way that nature creates a balance?
We've also discussed in the previous thread on this subject, that the degree of acidification that has taken place during the past 200 years or more, is of the order of only 0.1 pH, a drop from 8.2 to 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral (for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this concept). Below a pH of 7 is considered to be acidic, and above 7 is considered to be alkaline.
I remember your response, because it was typically non-scientific and alarmist. You claimed that a reduction of 0.1 in pH was equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Other alarmist sites don't go that far, and claim it's a 25% increase in acidity.
However, the question is, why would you convert a logarithmic scale into percentages? Isn't this another example of the deceptive techniques of the alarmists? Try to express things in the most alarmist manner.
If you wish to convert pH changes to percentages to emphasize the drop in alkalinity towards the acidic end of the pH scale, which is below a pH of 7, you need to place the percentages in context, in order to avoid the confusion that maybe a 100% increase in acidity leads to a state of neutrality.
The attached image displays the pH progression towards neutrality, in terms of percentages. A drop from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 represents a 26% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions, and therefore acidity. However, a drop from a pH of 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, represents a 900% increase in hydrogen ions.
Also, the pH of the oceans varies considerably according to location, season of the year, and depth of water. Most creatures will naturally and instinctively move continually to the parts of the ocean that they find more suitable, pH-wise.
However, I do understand that many climatologists and their alarmist supporters are stuck in cities, in offices, in front of their computers, massaging climate models to fit their agendas, and are not free to move, like fish, if they want to retain their jobs. ;D
I'll leave it here for the time being, otherwise the post will become ridiculously long.
-
Question for both, Bart and Ray. Since we know that methane has a warming potential that is significantly higher than carbon dioxide, why nobody is talking about methane?
Although in the last two decades methane emissions in the U.S. decreased somewhat because of decreased exploration of natural gas and petroleum within the country, the emissions from animal agriculture still increased. Methane, the gas produced extensively by the livestock industry worldwide, traps up to 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide within a 5 year period, and 72 times more within a 20 year period. It’s time to put methane on top of the environmental efforts.
Some organizations estimate that livestock production is responsible for 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions. So we don't have to feel bad about a long drive to take some nature pictures, but after the day of shooting we should have a bowl of rice and beans rather than a large steak. Better also for our health.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/
-
Farting cows will bring us to catastrophe.
-
One way or another, Russ. According to NASA, most methane from cattle comes from cow burps rather than farts.
-
Question for both, Bart and Ray. Since we know that methane has a warming potential that is significantly higher than carbon dioxide, why nobody is talking about methane?
I would suggest there are two main reasons, Les. First, the concentrations of methane in the atmosphere are very much more minuscule than CO2 concentrations. CO2 concentration are around 405 parts per million. Methane concentrations are less than 2 ppm (about 1.86 ppm). Secondly, Methane does not last nearly as long as CO2 in the atmosphere.
From Wikipedia:
"As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. The lifespan of methane in the atmosphere was estimated at 9.6 years as of 2001"
-
One way or another, Russ. According to NASA, most methane from cattle comes from cow burps rather than farts.
That's strange. I thought NASA stood for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. What do they know about cow burps and farts? Why would they want to know?
-
Maybe them want to use them in aeronautics experiments. Or for space craft propulsion.
NASA-sponsored study shows that global methane emissions produced by livestock are 11 percent higher than estimates made last decade. Because methane is a particularly nasty greenhouse gas, the new finding means it’s going to be even tougher to combat climate change than we realized.
There are approximately 1.5 billion cows on the planet, each and every one of them expelling upwards of 30 to 50 gallons of methane each day. We typically think of farts as being the culprit, but belches are actually the primary source of cattle-produced methane, accounting for 95 percent of the problematic greenhouse gas.
https://gizmodo.com/we-ve-grossly-underestimated-how-much-cow-farts-are-con-1818993089
-
Well it's obvious then that we need to get them to fart more and belch less. Getting the belches under control might save the planet. I still don't understand why NASA is involved in cow belches and farts. I'm a taxpayer, so I'd really like an answer to that question.
-
Question for both, Bart and Ray. Since we know that methane has a warming potential that is significantly higher than carbon dioxide, why nobody is talking about methane?
Hi Les,
Indeed, Methane is an even more potent absorber of heat, but there is much less of it compared to Watervapor, and to CO2.
What we need to look at instead, is the so-called Radiative Forcing that these gasses cause, in combination, and over time. Radiative Forcing is how much incoming solar radiation is absorbed versus absorption of longer wavelength earth heat emissions. If they trap more outgoing heat (earth emissions) than incoming (solar) heat, it's called 'positive' Radiative Forcing.
The simplest way to explain is with an image ;) Attached is a graph that shows their net Forcings as it was, and as it's projected to be for the coming years. CO2 is the dominant one, with Methane a good second. If you want to dive deep into the underlying calculations:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
So yes, by also acting on Methane emissions, there is lots of progress to be made, but CO2 levels remain the dominant driving factor, in fact its dominance is increasing rapidly. And CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long period of time, so it accumulates more over time.
I've also added a chart with a historical overview of various other Radiative Forcings, positive and negative, to put things into perspective.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Question for both, Bart and Ray. Since we know that methane has a warming potential that is significantly higher than carbon dioxide, why nobody is talking about methane?
Well it appears the NASA has, Les. Evidently they've been working overtime to sniff out farting cows.
-
Notwithstanding the smell, it makes some sense.
Currently there are two Methane fueled liquid rocket engines under development in the United States, the Raptor by SpaceX and the BE-4 by Blue Origin.
Methane is denser than many other gases and when used in combination with LOX (methalox) as a propellant it provides a lot of benefits over traditional hydrogen+LOX (hydralox) launch systems. Methane can be compressed into smaller cylinders resulting in lighter rockets and is also more stable in space over long periods of time vs hydrolox.
Methane can be also manufactured on Mars. Not by cows, but by the Sabatier process that involves the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures (optimally 300–400 °C) and pressures in the presence of a nickel catalyst to produce methane and water.
-
And then there is the issue of injustice. The brunt of the negative consequences will be carried by the poorest parts of the world, those who do not have the financial capacity to build defenses against, or repair damages from, the negative climate effects. The ones who are causing the issues will also be hurt but, to a point, they can allocate increasing amounts of money to do damage control. It will be cheaper to spend money on prevention, than a lot more money on curative measures, again and again.
Okay, Bart, I'll continue with the rational debunking of your previous post, hoping this is not too long. ;)
This issue raises another fundamental aspect of all human activity, which many economists seem to ignore, as well as climate-change alarmists. Even Slobodan, who seems quite intelligent and appears to have some understanding of economics, seems unable to grasp the point. ;)
Our entire structure of modern civilization is built upon energy supplies, and the intelligent use of those energy supplies.
Ape-like creatures millions of years ago, gradually evolved into humans by sourcing energy (food) more efficiently. They began hunting and eating meat, instead of just plucking berries and fruit from the trees. They gained a larger supply of food and got a surge of nutrients which helped in the development of the larger human brain.
Check out the following link. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120420105539.htm
"Carnivory is behind the evolutionary success of humankind. When early humans started to eat meat and eventually hunt, their new, higher-quality diet meant that women could wean their children earlier. Women could then give birth to more children during their reproductive life, which is a possible contribution to the population gradually spreading over the world. The connection between eating meat and a faster weaning process is shown by a research group from Sweden, which compared close to 70 mammalian species and found clear patterns."
"Learning to hunt was a decisive step in human evolution. Hunting necessitated communication, planning and the use of tools, all of which demanded a larger brain. At the same time, adding meat to the diet made it possible to develop this larger brain."
It is true that poor people who live in flimsy shacks are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events. However, the point you seem to be missing is that they would still be vulnerable to extreme weather events after we had spent trillions of dollars in reducing CO2 levels with alternative, more expensive, energy supplies, unless you believe that all extreme weather events are caused by elevated CO2 levels.
If you believe that, then there's little point in continuing the discussion. The historical record shows without doubt that extreme weather events have been a regular occurrence in the past, and that there have been past civilizations that have been destroyed by very sudden changes in climate which are not correlated to changes in CO2 levels. The Khmer civilization at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, is just one example.
Poor people are energy-starved people. As the cost of energy rises, poverty increases, unless there is a major political change in the distribution of wealth (energy).
Here's another interesting summary of what we are discussing:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
Let's examine the major points in that article.
1. "Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere.
The heating effect of extra carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and many other minor gases can be calculated with confidence based on the absorption properties that have been measured carefully in the laboratory."
Wow! I didn't know that. Ah! I see that's not true, as I read further. ;)
"Currently, the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface. The effect would be somewhat similar if the sun had started to shine 1 percent more brightly during the 20th century."
Water vapor is excluded from the above calculation because it is an intimate and highly variable part of the climate system itself in the form of clouds, rain, snow and other weather. "
What the article failed to mention is that water vapour is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
From NOAA, which is a fairly reliable source of information, wouldn't you agree?
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.
As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'.
However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.
Have you got it yet, Bart, or do I have to go on and on and on? ;D
-
Question for both, Bart and Ray. Since we know that methane has a warming potential that is significantly higher than carbon dioxide, why nobody is talking about methane?
There is nothing new about this issue.
Methane has long been recognized as a Greenhouse gas and there are numerous publications on sources of methane and its impact. A long while ago when I was doing some work on bovine growth hormone (1985), EPA published a paper supporting the use of the hormone as a way of reducing methane emission from cows. the hormone promotes both milk production and weight gain so fewer cattle would be needed for dairy and meat production, thus reducing the methane impact from this source. I used this reference in a policy paper I was writing at that time at the trade association where I worked.
-
Great, Alan. But did you check to make sure fatter cows don't fart more? The whole thing is ridiculous, and what really hurts is that my taxes are going to study cow burps and farts.
-
Never mind the increase in farts, but I doubt that the quantitative increase in milk and weight gain resulting from hormone growth would retain the quality of the "organic" feeding methods.
-
Why is it time? I agree there's an overwhelming quantity of evidence. However, I'm concerned with the quality of the evidence. By quality, I mean evidence that conforms to those fundamental requirements of the methodology of science, which, in order for certainty to be achieved, necessitates experimentation over the relevant periods of time, under controlled conditions where just one variable can be changed in order to observe the role and influence of that one variable, such as CO2, on the rest of the very complex system.
So what are you trying to say; that scientists do not know how to do their research, or that you know better?
I can find no sensible reason to deduce that food crops will fail due to a very gradual rise in CO2 levels, which is why I don't mention it. Modern agriculture uses pesticides to deter insects, and chemicals such as Glyphosate to control weeds.
Yes, Glyphosate kills pests, and also a slew of useful insects.
As for the effects of CO2 on Food security:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4bae/439a64aee8498260a768a4938affe9828769.pdf
I know, it's dated a bit, but that is also indicative that this subject is rather underexposed in research, and thus with the general public.
Regarding the possible failure of crops due to drought and extreme weather events, we've been through this before.
Yes, but apparently you do not agree with the conclusions of scientists. No surprise there, just an observation.
Water vapor in total is a much more significant 'Greenhouse' gas than CO2 and Methane combined. If water vapor did not form clouds, we'd all be stuffed. Fortunately it does form clouds, which are very small water droplets. As the water droplets get larger, they begin to fall as rain.
No it is not more significant, and what's more, water vapor is short lived and rains out when the levels get too high, where CO2 keeps accumulating.
I see a contradiction here. If the oceans release CO2 due to warming, wouldn't that also reduce acidification? Isn't this yet another way that nature creates a balance?
Oceans do two things at the same time. They absorb CO2, and ultimately form deposits as Carbonites. At the same time they release CO2 that's not yet trapped as Carbonites, more so when the water gets warmer. One could also say that its net absorption is reduced and thus less is pulled out of the atmosphere (but it's still a lot), and thus more CO2 is returned to (or remains in) the atmosphere, adding to the accelerated build-up of CO2 levels.
We've also discussed in the previous thread on this subject, that the degree of acidification that has taken place during the past 200 years or more, is of the order of only 0.1 pH, a drop from 8.2 to 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral (for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this concept). Below a pH of 7 is considered to be acidic, and above 7 is considered to be alkaline.
I remember your response, because it was typically non-scientific and alarmist. You claimed that a reduction of 0.1 in pH was equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Other alarmist sites don't go that far, and claim it's a 25% increase in acidity.
However, the question is, why would you convert a logarithmic scale into percentages?
Because most normal people understand percentages. Not that many understand Logarithms. Besides, what's the use of talking about "a change in Log10(Hydrogen ions)", instead of a straightforward percentage? It smacks of deliberate obfuscation.
A drop from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 represents a 26% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions, and therefore acidity.
The numbers that were quoted, at a time you had not yet even heard about Ocean Acidification as CO2's evil twin, were obviously rounded for readability. And it also demonstrates the issue with reporting in Logarithms, seemingly small differences are actually quite significant.
To illustrate the obvious, a change from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 is an increase of 25.893%, where a change from pH 8.2 to pH 8.08606 is an increase of 30%. So, an increased difference of pH 0.01394 is equal to a 4% difference (4.107% to be more accurate), more than significant.
Sorry for having to spell out such simple things, but apparently it is necessary.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I assume cows burp more methane than fart because they chew their cud.
Interestingly, and to get back to photography, I just returned from a road trip visiting the National Parks in the American southwest. Much of the west has cows (steers) grazing on private lands that are fenced in. By the way, I found steaks generally better there than in the east where I live. A large part of government land is open to free range grazing and lots of methane producing cows. While driving to Dead Horse Point (Utah State Park) in Canyonlands, you had to watch out for cattle while driving. We ran into a traffic jam at one point and had to stop. The cowboy was rounding up some range feeding cattle along the way. The second and third shot shows a method used to keep cattle from straying from one land to another along roads. While the metal road bed allows vehicular traffic to pass, cows just won't step on it because they feel too shaky. So it keeps them from straying. But they still are on roads you drive feeding from bush to bush and farting or belching as the case may be.
-
Video the cow shot was taken from. Notice all the little farters that will add to warming.
https://flic.kr/p/25AJ9mF
-
It is true that poor people who live in flimsy shacks are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events. However, the point you seem to be missing is that they would still be vulnerable to extreme weather events after we had spent trillions of dollars in reducing CO2 levels with alternative, more expensive, energy supplies, unless you believe that all extreme weather events are caused by elevated CO2 levels.
And there you go again, with another strawman's argument. Grow up and stop acting so childish. All that the experts say, is that extreme weather events will become more extreme (due to the increase in water volume (evaporating or raining), and larger temperature differences involved).
Poor people are energy-starved people. As the cost of energy rises, poverty increases, unless there is a major political change in the distribution of wealth (energy).
Not necessarily, but 'they' (as developing countries in Asia and Africa) are more likely to use cheap coal (amongst others from your home country) as they are catching up, thus adding to our shared problems.
What the article failed to mention is that water vapour is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
No, it is the most abundant, not the most significant, and it is not how solar radiation forcing works. Water vapor increases are caused by the increased CO2 levels (which leads to warming, which leads to expansion of the atmospheric volume, and it is filled by additional evaporated water), not the other way around.
From NOAA, which is a fairly reliable source of information, wouldn't you agree?
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere.
That's basic physics, yes.
As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'.
No, it soon reaches an equilibrium, because Water vapor is a short-lived gas. It needs CO2 to further warm the earth, CO2 is the driving force, complemented by water vapor.
Water vapor does two things (and that's also depending on its altitude), it indeed absorbs certain IR radiation wavelengths that is emitted/reflected back from the earth's surface, a 'positive' forcing. But it also reflects incoming solar energy when the water vapor is in the form of clouds, a 'negative' forcing, before the solar energy can be converted to longer wavelengths by the earth's surface. It is the net forcing that's important, not the cherrypicked part of the equation if that better suits your agenda.
What you seem to be missing is an understanding of which wavelengths are involved and whether gasses with Greenhouse properties absorb in those wavelengths. Again, a simple illustration with an image, and don't worry I'll walk you through the interpretation in baby steps:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png)
1. First, notice the wavelengths from the sun that reach the earth's atmosphere (red colored bell curve, at the top left). They cover some UV, visible light, and near-IR wavelengths. There is only very little absorption in the near-IR range by Water vapor, most light is absorbed in the UV side of the spectrum by O2 and Rayleigh-scattering, so ultimately 70-75% of the solar radiation reaches earth.
2. Then after cooling down a lot (absorption by the earth's surface), there are some re-emitted longer wavelengths trying to get back in space (blue colored bell-curve, at the top right). It is these wavelengths that matter if they are blocked, the atmosphere heats up.
3. There is some partial Water vapor absorption at the lower wavelengths in that band (growing as the wavelengths get longer), then there is also very much absorption by CO2 just after the bell curve peaks, which therefore is behaving as a very significant 'Greenhouse gas', and the there is more Water vapor absorption at the right-hand tail side of the range.
Now comes the crux of the matter. CO2 and Water vapor complement each other in absorbing more at the wavelengths where they matter most. Now, understand that the amount of water vapor (and thus its absoption) is limited by the atmosphere's temperature (it reaches an equilibrium and then starts raining out), but CO2 can regulate that equilibrium by building temperatures up to ever higher levels (which in turn will allow more water vapor to be held and then they can both heat-up the atmosphere some more, until yet more CO2 raises the equilibruium level even further and so on).
So CO2 is driving the solar forcing, helped by H2O absorbing what CO2 didn't already absorb. CO2 is a long-lived Greenhouse gas and therefore its amount cumulates over time. If we were to abruptly stop emitting excess CO2, then it would still take quite some time before a new equilibrium is established, but things would settle at that equilibrium.
That's what the chart I've shown earlier depicts. I'll show it here again so you don't have to scroll back and forth.
(http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=124501.0;attach=177776;image)
However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.
Not really, the principles are well understood, and the solar radiation flux and atmospheric absorptions can actually be measured.
The 'only' problem is in the many model assumptions required for an accurate model for the future.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/~naeger/references/journals/Sundar_Journal_Papers/1997_JGR_Hansen.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).
And it also traps emissions from the earth's surface. Just notice how much more the night temperature drops on a cloudless night. The overall net forcing is negative (see the second chart in this post, under "Total Aerosol"), but with a huge range of possible values due to e.g. differences in landcover (meaning that it varies a lot at different loctations).
Have you got it yet, Bart, or do I have to go on and on and on? ;D
I appears like it's you who still didn't get it ... (hope my explanation gets you somewhat upto speed), but that didn't stop you before, so I'm not holding my breath.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Great, Bart. Your charts prove once again that "figures don't lie, but . . ." you know the rest.
-
Great, Bart. Your charts prove once again that "figures don't lie, but . . ." you know the rest.
Hi Russ,
If you're calling me a liar, care to point out where I (or the sources that I quoted) got it wrong???
Cheers,
Bart
-
I wouldn't do that, Bart. I'm sure you didn't make the charts. But I suspect you believe the charts tell you something significant.
-
I wouldn't do that, Bart. I'm sure you didn't make the charts. But I suspect you believe the charts tell you something significant.
Russ,
You said "Your charts prove ...". What proof?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, the "fake news" climate change is causing more and more of our coast to be flooded.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/technology/article210413904.html
-
I'd just like to point out that global warming is fake news, the so-called moon landings were shot in Nevada (Area 51), vaccines cause autism, chemtrails cause homosexuality, Donald Trump is the healthiest person ever, Moses had a pet velociraptor and the earth is flat. That is all.
-
Charts don't mean anything if all the factors are not known. If you're missing a component, the conclusion could be false.
-
Exactly, Alan. But I'd go a step further and say that the conclusions almost certainly are false.
-
Exactly, Alan. But I'd go a step further and say that the conclusions almost certainly are false.
Yup. Because we all know better than them damned commie scientists.
-
While on the subject of charts, here is an interesting one. Even if you don't believe those numbers and cut it in half, it is quite alarming. More CO2 emitted in the last 30 years than in all preceeding years.
(http://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_13584_worldwide_carbon_emissions_from_fossil_fuel_consumption_and_cement_production_n.jpg)
https://www.statista.com/chart/13584/worldwide-carbon-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-consumption-and-cement-production/
-
It's China's fault.
-
To some degree, Alan.
In the latest news there was a refreshing item, describing a different kind of a scientitific project. Sometimes, it takes a team of real scientists to discover some unforeseen and undesired changes on the planet, and then a concerted effort to counteract such changes. When the great explorer James Cook visited South Georgia islands in 1775, the islands were teaming with wildlife, mainly birds. The birds must nest either on the ground or just below it in burrows because there are no trees. When the sealers and whalers started using it as a base in the 19th and 20th centuries, they brought in rats and mice that rapidly multiplied and ate the eggs, chicks and even fully grown birds.
About 9,000 tourists visit these islands and they contributed to South Georgia Heritage Trust, the Scottish charity which started a £10m campaign to protect the biodiversity hotspot. They used helicopters and poison pellets to systematically exterminate the rodents and it seems now they they were 100% sucessful. The birds are already rebounding.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44046472
Great example of scientists and nature lovers taking an initiative and getting rid of the rats, as opposed to some naysayers who wouldn't pay any atention to the plight of the birds and other wildlife on these islands.
-
To some degree, Alan.
In the latest news there was a refreshing item, describing a different kind of a scientitific project. Sometimes, it takes a team of real scientists to discover some unforeseen and undesired changes on the planet, and then a concerted effort to counteract such changes. When the great explorer James Cook visited South Georgia islands in 1775, the islands were teaming with wildlife, mainly birds. The birds must nest either on the ground or just below it in burrows because there are no trees. When the sealers and whalers started using it as a base in the 19th and 20th centuries, they brought in rats and mice that rapidly multiplied and ate the eggs, chicks and even fully grown birds.
About 9,000 tourists visit these islands and they contributed to South Georgia Heritage Trust, the Scottish charity which started a £10m campaign to protect the biodiversity hotspot. They used helicopters and poison pellets to systematically exterminate the rodents and it seems now they they were 100% sucessful. The birds are already rebounding.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44046472
Great example of scientists and nature lovers taking an initiative and getting rid of the rats, as opposed to some naysayers who wouldn't pay any atention to the plight of the birds and other wildlife on these islands.
Are you suggesting we shoot Chinese? :)
-
I knew, I should have split it into two replies.
-
Exactly, Alan. But I'd go a step further and say that the conclusions almost certainly are false.
That's a hunch, nothing even close to proof.
-
Meanwhile, in North Carolina, the "fake news" climate change is causing more and more of our coast to be flooded.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/technology/article210413904.html
Thanks for the article.
I wonder how long we have to wait for the religious deniers to discredit the source and/or repeat the hogwash claim it's due to coastal subsidence.
-
That's a hunch, nothing even close to proof.
Nobody has anything even close to "proof," Pieter, for any of it.
-
Nobody has anything even close to "proof," Pieter, for any of it.
So, it's not the Chinese?
Alan didn't even supply any proof for that claim, at all.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Can I just point out that science doesn't deal in proofs - that's mathematics, philosophy and distilling
-
Nobody has anything even close to "proof," Pieter, for any of it.
Apparently you had, but so far unsubstantiated:
Great, Bart. Your charts prove once again that "figures don't lie, but . . ." you know the rest.
-
Can I just point out that science doesn't deal in proofs - that's mathematics, philosophy and distilling
It matters none, Bill. The deniers do not accept any proof (except maybe from distilling), because one cannot ever know everything ...
They also condemn the scientific research and peer-review, especially when it confirms a hypothesis they don't like.
Even relatively simple things, like measuring the temperature that Earth emits at the surface, and doing the same above the Troposphere (or even Stratosphere), i.e. the Greenhouse effect, is not accepted.
And when science gets even more specific, like breaking down the same temperature difference at the level of wavelengths (which shows which elements caused the absorptions), they will deny the results (even when the absorption spectra can be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently you had, but so far unsubstantiated:
Okay, Pieter, since it's an aphorism with which you seem not to be familiar, here's the whole thing: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
Now I'm not suggesting you're a liar. I'm sure you accept these charts at face value. After all, to you they "prove" what you want proved.
But what you and a lot of other people think they prove is that CO2 and other human-generated "pollutants" (pollutants that make things grow, by the way) are causing "global warming." Of course that overlooks the whole of geologic history which is dominated by a succession of global warmings and coolings. The "planet" may be warming (though there's some evidence it's cooling), but there's certainly no "proof" whatever's happening is caused by anything other than the cosmos, perhaps with a minor contribution from humans (who are part of the cosmos).
And even if global warming exists and humans are causing it (two big ifs) there's no indication the warming is going to be a problem for humanity in general. Yes, it's going to be a problem for people who built stuff too close to the east coast of the U.S., but relative to humanity as a whole that's a pretty small (though vocal) group.
-
And even if global warming exists and humans are causing it (two big ifs) there's no indication the warming is going to be a problem for humanity in general. Yes, it's going to be a problem for people who built stuff too close to the east coast of the U.S., but relative to humanity as a whole that's a pretty small (though vocal) group.
I'm sure that the citizens of Bangladesh (who are likely to be highest impacted by rising ocean levels) couldn't care less what happens in Florida. they really don't have much of an alternative in terms of where they locate their housing and are already subject to problems brought about by more extreme weather patterns.
-
I'm sure you accept these charts at face value. After all, to you they "prove" what you want proved.
But what you and a lot of other people think they prove is that CO2 and other human-generated "pollutants" (pollutants that make things grow, by the way) are causing "global warming." Of course that overlooks the whole of geologic history which is dominated by a succession of global warmings and coolings.
No, it doesn't overlook that. In fact it has been investigated thoroughly, and it was found that basically none of the major historical causes (before humans could even become extinct, because there were none yet), that could explain the historical changes, can explain the current rapid (and accelerating) change in warming.
In the historical past, those major changes (think major as in Ice-ages) were mainly due to changes in the Earth's orbit and rotation angle relative to the sun (which delivers our heat generating surface temperatures). These are known as Milankovitch cycles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) . Adjustments were also caused by the shifting of continents that formed mountains (think Himalaya) to permanently change weather patterns and thus climate, and major vulcanic activity.
None of these can explain the current rapid increases of measurable global temperature. However, the influence of Solar Radiative Forcings caused by excess CO2 emissions, do explain the current rapid rise in global temperature. And we also know that the cause of the excess CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuel, because of the ratio of Carbon isotopes and because of the ratio of Carbon and Oxide in the atmosphere (Oxide is used for burning, Carbon is released, so the ratio changes in an almost perfect correlation).
Also, major historical changes took a long time, e.g. in the order of 40000 years between Ice-ages. The current warming and increases of CO2 started when the industrial revolution started, and really accelerated in the second half of last century when we started burning amounts of fossil fuels in unprecedented amounts. We're talking decades instead of millennia now, and that's one of the major concerns, the rate of change in a relatively short period of time.
The "planet" may be warming (though there's some evidence it's cooling), but there's certainly no "proof" whatever's happening is caused by anything other than the cosmos, perhaps with a minor contribution from humans (who are part of the cosmos).
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is lots of proof. Even some oil-companies warned about it in the '90s:
Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 then neglected to heed its own warning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo)
And even if global warming exists and humans are causing it (two big ifs) there's no indication the warming is going to be a problem for humanity in general. Yes, it's going to be a problem for people who built stuff too close to the east coast of the U.S., but relative to humanity as a whole that's a pretty small (though vocal) group.
Those New Yorkers and others were really really stupid, building their harbors and cities that used the goods being shipped through those harbors near the sea. Is that what you are saying?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm sure that the citizens of Bangladesh (who are likely to be highest impacted by rising ocean levels) couldn't care less what happens in Florida. they really don't have much of an alternative in terms of where they locate their housing and are already subject to problems brought about by more extreme weather patterns.
And just wait for the shit hitting the fan repeatedly in New-York, and other major cities located near the shores ...
Much cheaper to prevent than to cure, even mitigation at this late stage is cheaper than doing nothing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm sure that the citizens of Bangladesh (who are likely to be highest impacted by rising ocean levels) couldn't care less what happens in Florida. they really don't have much of an alternative in terms of where they locate their housing and are already subject to problems brought about by more extreme weather patterns.
Well that really stirred things up. Facts usually do.
Okay, Alan, obviously the answer is for American taxpayers to come up with the loot to evacuate all Bangladeshis to California, where they can be taken care of.
What, exactly, is your solution, Alan? All I see on here is hand-wringing about (possibly) rising temperatures, and how we ought to reduce our production of CO2, though nobody's suggested how we might get the world to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have an effect on (maybe) rising temperatures (maybe) caused by CO2 emissions.
It's all speculation. But the posters on here are having a lot of fun speculating, especially Pieter with his speculative charts.
-
Much cheaper to prevent than to cure, even at this late stage.
Cheers,
Bart
Okay, Bart, tell us how you'd "prevent" it. Maybe eat less gassy foods?
-
And just wait for the shit hitting the fan repeatedly in New-York, and other major cities located near the shores ...
Cheers,
Bart
Shit hits the fan almost continuously in New York, Bart, or maybe you haven't been reading about the second left-wing attorney general in a row to go down the tubes in New York. As I mentioned earlier, the outcry is going to be earth-shaking.
-
Shit hits the fan almost continuously in New York, Bart, or maybe you haven't been reading about the second left-wing attorney general in a row to go down the tubes in New York. As I mentioned earlier, the outcry is going to be earth-shaking.
As far I know, that shit is filling another swamp, more in-land, near Washington DC (although there's still the Potomac to deal with).
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, it's not the Chinese?
Alan didn't even supply any proof for that claim, at all.
Cheers,
Bart
Here's the proof China is the biggest producer of CO2 and they're getting worse. https://www.ft.com/content/ba4212b6-c63f-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
-
If that link doesn't open, here's another report showing China's CO2 production is again increasing after being steady for three years. They're polluting even more. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
-
Okay, Bart, tell us how you'd "prevent" it. Maybe eat less gassy foods?
By listening to good advice, at an early stage (better safe than sorry)?
At this late stage, not much left other than calling in us Dutchmen. Not a cheap solution, but the cost will keep rising. We've have had centuries of experience with protecting against rising water levels, and even with reclaiming land from the sea. We grew our landmass (for agriculture an building cities) without having to fight a war with our neighbors.
So, one might prevent things from getting worse...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's the proof China is the biggest producer of CO2 and they're getting worse. https://www.ft.com/content/ba4212b6-c63f-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
The link is blocked for non-subscribers to the Financial Times. But I'm pretty sure who the number 2 producer is ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
If that link doesn't open, here's another report showing China's CO2 production is again increasing after being steady for three years. They're polluting even more. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/
And the number 2: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/ ?
No wait, based on your source https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ (which I assume you find trustworthy), China is rated as "Highly insufficient", and the USA is rated "Critically insufficient".
In fact, based on per capita emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) the USA ranks very high (#11) and China comes in at #42 on these figures for 2013.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The link is blocked for non-subscribers to the Financial Times. But I'm pretty sure who the number 2 producer is ...
Cheers,
Bart
China is #1 at 30% of the world's CO2 production up from 27% about 6 years ago. Meanwhile, America, at #2, is less than half China's at 14% down from 17%. Yeah, I know. You're going to talk about per capita production. But the earth doesn't care about per capita only totals produced. And China still continues to increase while America is getting "cleaner". Meanwhile China doesn't have to do anything regarding the Paris accords until 2030.
We all argued these points in the now defunct forum thread. By the way, most of Europe isn't meeting their Paris commitments either to reduce CO2. The whole thing was political and Trump was right pulling out.
Meanwhile, we now find out that the German automaker Audi, part of the crooks from Volkswagen, has also cheated on diesel pollution adding to CO2. They're all a bunch of hypocrites and liars like the Chinese. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/audi-faces-fresh-diesel-engine-recall-for-a6-model-spiegel-says
-
China is #1 at 30% of the world's CO2 production up from 27% about 6 years ago. Meanwhile, America, at #2, is less than half China's at 14% down from 17%. Yeah, I know. You're going to talk about per capita production.
Hell yeah, 14%/30% = 46.7% of the emissions, by 325.7/1379 million = 23.6% of the number of people. (Double-)Shame on you!
Time to put the blame where it belongs. Grow up Alan, and take responsibility, and act upon it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
China is #1 at 30% of the world's CO2 production up from 27% about 6 years ago. Meanwhile, America, at #2, is less than half China's at 14% down from 17%. Yeah, I know. You're going to talk about per capita production. But the earth doesn't care about per capita only totals produced. And China still continues to increase while America is getting "cleaner". Meanwhile China doesn't have to do anything regarding the Paris accords until 2030.
We all argued these points in the now defunct forum thread. By the way, most of Europe isn't meeting their Paris commitments either to reduce CO2. The whole thing was political and Trump was right pulling out.
Meanwhile, we now find out that the German automaker Audi, part of the crooks from Volkswagen, has also cheated on diesel pollution adding to CO2. They're all a bunch of hypocrites and liars like the Chinese. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/audi-faces-fresh-diesel-engine-recall-for-a6-model-spiegel-says
Not only CO2, but also methane. Greenhouse gases are generated at every stage of livestock production. Animal wastes and the digestive process emit methane, which scientists say can warm the planet 34 times faster than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Animal wastes also emit another type of greenhouse gas called nitrous oxide, which is nearly 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-appetite-for-meat-swells-along-with-climate-changing-pollution/
In 1949, there were only about 100,000 head of dairy cattle in China; in 2015, they had over 16 million cows. Compared with 40 million cows in India.
However, both India and China are now experimenting with burning the cow-produced methane and using it even for the generation of electricity.
-
Hell yeah, 14%/30% = 46.7% of the emissions, by 325.7/1379 million = 23.6% of the number of people. Shame on you!
Time to put the blame where it belongs. Grow up Alan, and take responsibility, and act upon it.
Cheers,
Bart
Why do you always resort to ad hominin attacks. "Grow up", you tell me. You called someone else earlier a "child". I didn't realize you were the only adult in the room. You ought to show a little more respect to the people you disagree with.
-
Why do you always resort to ad hominin attacks. "Grow up", you tell me. You called someone else earlier a "child". I didn't realize you were the only adult in the room. You ought to show a little more respect to the people you disagree with.
Respect has to be earned, and honesty goes a long way towards achieving that. One doesn't have to agree, but one has to act in an adult way.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It matters none, Bill. The deniers do not accept any proof (except maybe from distilling), because one cannot ever know everything ...
They also condemn the scientific research and peer-review, especially when it confirms a hypothesis they don't like.
Even relatively simple things, like measuring the temperature that Earth emits at the surface, and doing the same above the Troposphere (or even Stratosphere), i.e. the Greenhouse effect, is not accepted.
And when science gets even more specific, like breaking down the same temperature difference at the level of wavelengths (which shows which elements caused the absorptions), they will deny the results (even when the absorption spectra can be replicated in controlled laboratory experiments).
Cheers,
Bart
Yeah, but you can prove anything with facts. And I mean, what do these 'experts' know, eh? :-)
-
Yeah, but you can prove anything with facts. And I mean, what do these 'experts' know, eh? :-)
;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Meanwhile, we now find out that the German automaker Audi, part of the crooks from Volkswagen, has also cheated on diesel pollution adding to CO2. They're all a bunch of hypocrites and liars like the Chinese. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/audi-faces-fresh-diesel-engine-recall-for-a6-model-spiegel-says
Not that I condone the practices of German diesel manufacturers, but the U.S. cars are still almost twice as polluting as Europe's and Japan's. JATO’s study of the U.S. light vehicle market in the first quarter of 2010 reveals that the market’s average CO2 output is 268.5 g/km. In order to reflect like-for-like comparison with car markets in other global regions, excluding pick-up trucks, full size vans and small commercial vehicles, the figure falls to 255.6 g/km. This figure compares very unfavorably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe’s five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km.
https://newatlas.com/us-european-japanese-car-market-co2-pollution/15485/
-
As far I know, that shit is filling another swamp, more in-land, near Washington DC (although there's still the Potomac to deal with).
Cheers,
Bart
Actually it's happening in Albany, which is far enough inland that none of the shit will get into the ocean.
-
Actually it's happening in Albany, which is far enough inland that none of the shit will get into the ocean.
Well done, Russ. If only the same could be said for what is emitted in the air and through the rivers that do reach the oceans or neighboring countries ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually it's happening in Albany, which is far enough inland that none of the shit will get into the ocean.
I mentioned it earlier in some other thread, that about 30 years ago I happened to paddle on the Guadalupe river in central Texas which starts as a clear cold stream from the bottom of the Canon Lake dam and then it flows gently between the cattle ranches. After about 15-20 miles below the dam the river gets quite warm and very polluted just from the pasture runoffs that I lost any desire for a swim. As mentioned, all the pollution on that river stretch seemed just from the farming. However, according to a 2012 Environment Texas report, industrial facilities dumped 14.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals into Texas’ waterways, making Texas’ waterways the fourth worst in the nation.
-
and how we ought to reduce our production of CO2, though nobody's suggested how we might get the world to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have an effect on (maybe) rising temperatures (maybe) caused by CO2 emissions.
Are you serious? There have been hosts of suggestions for reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, including wind power, solar energy, no fracking, reduction of deforestation, less consumption of meat, and abandonment of coal. If you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't say such ridiculous things.
-
Actually it's happening in Albany, which is far enough inland that none of the shit will get into the ocean.
By my count there were a half dozen Republican members of Congress that have resigned in the past year because of similar issues that the NY AG committed. They are all equally culpable and you cannot single out just one party for gross misconduct. You need to be an equal opportunity place the blamer.
-
Well that really stirred things up. Facts usually do.
Okay, Alan, obviously the answer is for American taxpayers to come up with the loot to evacuate all Bangladeshis to California, where they can be taken care of.
What, exactly, is your solution, Alan? All I see on here is hand-wringing about (possibly) rising temperatures, and how we ought to reduce our production of CO2, though nobody's suggested how we might get the world to reduce CO2 emissions enough to have an effect on (maybe) rising temperatures (maybe) caused by CO2 emissions.
No where did I say it was the US's responsibility to deal with issues that those living in Bangladesh will have. My point was there are a lot of people outside the US who will be impacted (and currently are) by extreme weather.
As to the solution, we covered a lot of this in the 'old' climate change thread which is archived here so you can go back and see what we wrote about only about four months ago.
This is why I posted the comment to our moderator back on the first page of this thread. It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this issue without resorting to name calling and snarky responses. Oh well, as the French say, 'plus ça change plus c'est la même chose'
-
Not that I condone the practices of German diesel manufacturers, but the U.S. cars are still almost twice as polluting as Europe's and Japan's. JATO’s study of the U.S. light vehicle market in the first quarter of 2010 reveals that the market’s average CO2 output is 268.5 g/km. In order to reflect like-for-like comparison with car markets in other global regions, excluding pick-up trucks, full size vans and small commercial vehicles, the figure falls to 255.6 g/km. This figure compares very unfavorably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe’s five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km.
https://newatlas.com/us-european-japanese-car-market-co2-pollution/15485/
Les, the problem is Americans don't like driving kiddie cars.
-
Les, the problem is Americans don't like driving kiddie cars.
That explains the popularity of e.g. BMWs in the USA, and also in China.
Or is it the quality of the roads that requires the use of Hummers?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I mentioned it earlier in some other thread, that about 30 years ago I happened to paddle on the Guadalupe river in central Texas which starts as a clear cold stream from the bottom of the Canon Lake dam and then it flows gently between the cattle ranches. After about 15-20 miles below the dam the river gets quite warm and very polluted just from the pasture runoffs that I lost any desire for a swim. As mentioned, all the pollution on that river stretch seemed just from the farming. However, according to a 2012 Environment Texas report, industrial facilities dumped 14.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals into Texas’ waterways, making Texas’ waterways the fourth worst in the nation.
Oh, them nasty Texans.
-
Les, the problem is Americans don't like driving kiddie cars.
And some of those tiny cars will leave in dust the big 8-cylinder American behemoths.
Fiat Abarth 500 goes to 132mph and Mini Cooper to 160 mph. And you can actually drive them at those speeds on Autobahn. Compare that with 55mph speed limit in NJ.
-
Are you serious? There have been hosts of suggestions for reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, including wind power, solar energy, no fracking, reduction of deforestation, less consumption of meat, and abandonment of coal. If you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't say such ridiculous things.
Golly, Peter, all those "suggestions." And yet you think the "planet" still is warming. What's the world coming to? Keep up the suggestions.
-
By my count there were a half dozen Republican members of Congress that have resigned in the past year because of similar issues that the NY AG committed. They are all equally culpable and you cannot single out just one party for gross misconduct. You need to be an equal opportunity place the blamer.
Well, the problem, Alan, is that Democrats don't resign. In spite of the shame they just keep plugging along, as in Bill Clinton.
-
. . .there are a lot of people outside the US who will be impacted (and currently are) by extreme weather.
Extreme weather? Don't you mean extreme climate? Seems to me I remember a short lecture on this thread about the difference. And I'm sure a lot of people will be impacted by extreme climate change if it ever actually occurs.
-
Okay, Pieter, since it's an aphorism with which you seem not to be familiar, here's the whole thing: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
C'mon Russ, don't play dumb, it's below your dignity. I know my Amarican idiom so there's no need "to teach your grandmother to suck ...." (and Google is your friend in the rare case you wouldn't know what .... stands for, but I'm sure you do ;) )
Now I'm not suggesting you're a liar. I'm sure you accept these charts at face value. After all, to you they "prove" what you want proved.
The problem is not that I accept these charts at face value because I don't. Look for my posts in this thread and you'll see that is an absolute unfounded statement.
The real problem with these charts is that you dismiss them out of hand because they don't align with your opinion, so they can't be true. You keep saying we all know nothing (which I agree with) but on the other hand your opinion on this subject seems to be gospel and just iterating it should be enough proof for everybody to immediately accept it. Maybe that's how the military worked, but over here it doesn't work that way.
But what you and a lot of other people think they prove is that CO2 and other human-generated "pollutants" (pollutants that make things grow, by the way) are causing "global warming." Of course that overlooks the whole of geologic history which is dominated by a succession of global warmings and coolings. The "planet" may be warming (though there's some evidence it's cooling), but there's certainly no "proof" whatever's happening is caused by anything other than the cosmos, perhaps with a minor contribution from humans (who are part of the cosmos).
And even if global warming exists and humans are causing it (two big ifs) there's no indication the warming is going to be a problem for humanity in general. Yes, it's going to be a problem for people who built stuff too close to the east coast of the U.S., but relative to humanity as a whole that's a pretty small (though vocal) group.
As I said, restating your opinion constitutes no proof.
-
But the posters on here are having a lot of fun speculating, especially Pieter with his speculative charts.
You're getting old Russ, you're mixing up people here. Happens a lot so no need to really worry about it ;)
-
And some of those tiny cars will leave in dust the big 8-cylinder American behemoths.
Fiat Abarth 500 goes to 132mph and Mini Cooper to 160 mph. And you can actually drive them at those speeds on Autobahn. Compare that with 55mph speed limit in NJ.
Well, I did 90mph on a Connecticut highway with a speed limit of 65 and got tagged by the friendly state trooper for $300. Just got back from the southwest touring the national parks. Speed limits of 75 and 80mph are commonplace in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah unlike here in NJ.
Of course, it's not only the speed. Americans like big cars like SUV's which suck up the fuel. Ford and GM may be ending selling sedans in America favoring crossovers, a mix between a full size SUV and regular sedans. But that could be also due to heavy competition from foreign models.
-
Extreme weather? Don't you mean extreme climate? Seems to me I remember a short lecture on this thread about the difference. And I'm sure a lot of people will be impacted by extreme climate change if it ever actually occurs.
Climate change leading to extreme weather events. Not a difficult concept to grasp. The climate change we're seeing is enough to be reducing glaciation significantly & to be causing very significant reductions in winter sea-ice covering in the Arctic & the break-up of large ice-shelves in the Antarctic. But don't worry folks, 'cos it's not really happening. Just fake news. Or something.
-
Hi Bill, : https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Notice this information is from NASA, the same outfit that's measuring cow burps and farts.
-
Their conclusion is that the total amount of ice is decreasing.
Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.
We could take it one step further and conclude that the increase in penguin population won't make up for reduced number of polar bears.
-
Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.
But the amount of snowfall has increased ten percent over the last couple of centuries. Since Antarctica is a land mass, that snow locks up water from the ocean slowing it's rise. Sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic are neutral since sea ice floats and doesn't effect sea levels regardless of how little or much there is.
The point is there's lots of stuff going on. Unfortunately, the doomsayers only cherry pick the news that supports their view. We should hear all of it so we can have a true understanding of what's going on. Because the doomsayers have their thumb on the news, there's a lot of mis-trust from people like me. They're like the boy who cried "wolf".
-
Here's article on Antarctic snow fall increase. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/world/antarctica-snowfall-increase-wxc/index.html
-
Here's article on Antarctic snow fall increase. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/world/antarctica-snowfall-increase-wxc/index.html
What's interesting about this article is that it reverses scientific studies previously made. Previous studies concluded Antarctic snow leevels have remained constant over the last few centuries. The new British study concluded that snow levels increased ten percent.
The point is that just like other science, scientific conclusions don't stay forever, necessarilyy. We should keep an open mind. We should also reliaze that many studies weren't done properly or conclusively and past records they used were very sketchy. A little humbleness about our effect on God's Earth might be in order. He seems to have be doing a pretty good job on taking care.
-
Hi Bill, : https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Notice this information is from NASA, the same outfit that's measuring cow burps and farts.
Great article - here are some key quotes from the page you linked:
"Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice."
"“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said."
"Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). "
It's key to note that Antarctica has ice surrounding a continental landmass, so it takes a relatively small amount to increase the extent of the coverage (or to decrease it, of course) as it's only ranging beyond the land and not the entire area.
-
But none of that means much, Phil. Sea ice does not contribute to a rise or lowering of sea levels. It's floating. When sea water freezes or melts, the sea's level remains the same. It's melting glaciers on land that will raise sea levels just as increased snow on the Antarctic land mass will lower sea levels.
-
But none of that means much, Phil. Sea ice does not contribute to a rise or lowering of sea levels. It's floating. When sea water freezes or melts, the sea's level remains the same. It's melting glaciers on land that will raise sea levels just as increased snow on the Antarctic land mass will lower sea levels.
At the first look it seems so, Alan. However, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.
In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html
-
But none of that means much, Phil. Sea ice does not contribute to a rise or lowering of sea levels. It's floating. When sea water freezes or melts, the sea's level remains the same. It's melting glaciers on land that will raise sea levels just as increased snow on the Antarctic land mass will lower sea levels.
Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?
-
Well, I did 90mph on a Connecticut highway with a speed limit of 65 and got tagged by the friendly state trooper for $300. Just got back from the southwest touring the national parks. Speed limits of 75 and 80mph are commonplace in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah unlike here in NJ.
Of course, it's not only the speed. Americans like big cars like SUV's which suck up the fuel. Ford and GM may be ending selling sedans in America favoring crossovers, a mix between a full size SUV and regular sedans. But that could be also due to heavy competition from foreign models.
That's a shame, 90 mph doesn't seem so fast when you have thousands of miles to go. That reminds of my driving trip in 1976 from Toronto to the Southwest which I made with a friend in his Cadillac Eldorado. That was real gas guzzler, I think we got about 7-8 miles per gallon. OTH, the gas cost then about 55 cents per gallon.
Few years before that, I was driving in Europe on German Autobahn and through Swiss Alps mountain passes a much more economical red convertible Citroen 2CV with a 2 cylinder 421ccm 16HP engine. That car took me through half Europe, from the French Riviera all the way to the Polar Circle. However, the top speed was about 100 kilometres per hour, not miles.
-
Hi,
All you guys who are convinced that "climate change" (a term that took the place of "global warming" when it became clear the globe isn't warming) soon will bring a return of devastating eperic seas, might be interested in an article in the May 14th issue of The Weekly Standard by Kevin D. Williamson titled "The Scientistic Delusion" and subtitled "Lots of terrible political ideas come cloaked in a white lab coat."
Kevin begins with the demise of Freud as a "scientist," but goes on into several scary delusions foisted on the public by people who pose as scientists and produce fanciful, gaudy charts supposedly based on "research."
As he points out: "Freudian thought has gone from 'established science' to obvious poppycock in a remarkably short period 0of time. There ought to be a lesson in that for the American news media. But the American news media are remarkably resistant to learning."
And:
"If there is a two-word phrase that should be excised from American journalism, it is 'study proves.'" Wow! How often have I seen one or another variant of that meaningless phrase in this thread?
Then there's this quote: "Some systems are chaotic and hence their behavior is 'impossible, even in principle, to predict in the long term,' as computer scientist Melanie Mitchell puts it, 'The textbook examples of chaotic systems are markets and weather patterns..'"
There's a lot more. You guys who are the opposite of climate change "deniers" (otherwise known as "true believers") should enjoy that article.
-
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
There are several good reasons why “Global Warming” has been supplanted by “Climate Change”.
-
In other words, Peter, "studies prove?"
-
Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?
Bill, maybe you missed this one I sent back to you: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Maybe the planet will flip over and the north pole will end up in Antarctica. You suppose?
-
Bill, maybe you missed this one I sent back to you: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Maybe the planet will flip over and the north pole will end up in Antarctica. You suppose?
And the loss of Arctic sea-ice far outstrips any build-up in Antarctica, plus we've seen the calving of huge ice-shelves from the Antarctic, which will ultimately travel north & melt.
-
Well, it's probably the end of the world.
-
At the first look it seems so, Alan. However, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html
Les we're discussing apples and oranges here. The professor is talking about freshwater ice that slips off of land into the sea. Frozen sea water in the Arctic and Antarctic occurs when the Salty Sea freezes up. There is no rising or lowering of the sea level because the sea ice is already salty the same as the sea.
-
Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?
Sea ice does not contribute to a raising or lowering of the sea levels. Look up Archimedes principle.
-
And the loss of Arctic sea-ice far outstrips any build-up in Antarctica, plus we've seen the calving of huge ice-shelves from the Antarctic, which will ultimately travel north & melt.
Ice shelbes have calbed for hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of years. The calves are replaced by ice buildup from behind. This is an ongoing process that happens all the time. It's just that we're noticing it now because we have instrumentation and airplanes and ships that notice it. No one knew it was happening before. Or cared.
-
Sea ice does not contribute to a raising or lowering of the sea levels. Look up Archimedes principle.
In principle that's correct. However, once it has become a liquid it will expand (above 4 Degrees Celsius) due to increasing temperature.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The cubic thermal expansion coefficient of water is: 2.573×10^-4 K^(-1) (reciprocal kelvins)
-
In principle that's correct. However, once it has become a liquid it will expand (above 4 Degrees Celsius) due to increasing temperature.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The cubic thermal expansion coefficient of water is: 2.573×10^-4 K^(-1) (reciprocal kelvins)
That has nothing to do with the original argument that melting sea ice is going to raise the level of the oceans. Because melting sea ice had frozen the year before. There's a constant cycle of freezing and melting,freezing and melting that goes on every year so over the long-term there is no effect on the level of the oceans.
-
Trump just cancelled the NASA program that tracks carbon and methane.
The White House has mounted a broad attack on climate science, repeatedly proposing cuts to NASA's earth science budget, including the CMS, and cancellations of climate missions such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3).
-
That has nothing to do with the original argument that melting sea ice is going to raise the level of the oceans. Because melting sea ice had frozen the year before. There's a constant cycle of freezing and melting,freezing and melting that goes on every year so over the long-term there is no effect on the level of the oceans.
Unless there is more melting than freezing. The growth of the Antarctic sea ice surface (! not its thickness, so the volume is potentially still reducing) is way more than offset by the reduction of the total volume (= surface area x thickness) of the Arctic sea ice. Added to that is the meltwater coming from land ice, and glaciers more rapidly slide into the oceans with less sea-ice to slow them down.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
And a lot more background material:
https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5#53
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, the problem, Alan, is that Democrats don't resign. In spite of the shame they just keep plugging along, as in Bill Clinton.
Do you ever read the newspapers? A number of Democratic politicians have resigned among them Franken, Conyers, and most recently Schneiderman. There are others but why should I bother to do the research you should. Why don't you think before you post so you don't appear so ignorant which I know you are not.
-
Kevin begins with the demise of Freud as a "scientist," but goes on into several scary delusions foisted on the public by people who pose as scientists and produce fanciful, gaudy charts supposedly based on "research."
As he points out: "Freudian thought has gone from 'established science' to obvious poppycock in a remarkably short period 0of time. There ought to be a lesson in that for the American news media. But the American news media are remarkably resistant to learning."
Freudian thought/science is subjective rather than objective and relies on the observer rather than data. The same problem occurs in the development of pharmaceuticals to treat various mental conditions. We do not have any laboratory tests/imaging that permit the direct analysis of whether the patient is getting better, rather we have to rely on the 'trained' observe for analysis. We end up with lots of drugs that appear to work for some individuals but not others. I've not read the Williamson piece but debates about this type of analytical science were far better led by the late Karl Popper who in his 'falsibility' approach did more to make people think about how studies ought to be constructed.
-
Unless there is more melting than freezing. The growth of the Antarctic sea ice surface (! not its thickness, so the volume is potentially still reducing) is way more than offset by the reduction of the total volume (= surface area x thickness) of the Arctic sea ice. Added to that is the meltwater coming from land ice, and glaciers more rapidly slide into the oceans with less sea-ice to slow them down.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/
And a lot more background material:
https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5#53
Cheers,
Bart
You keep throwing in strawmen arguments and should know better that sea ice has nothing to do with your strawmen. Meltwater from glaciers or ice on land has nothing to do with sea ice, the subject in question. Sea water, regardless of how much freezes each year or melts each year to create sea ice, does not contribute to the raising or lowering of sea levels. It may reflect the warming or cooling of the climate or changing weather patterns, but doesn't change sea levels. Even the sea ice that may have been there before for thousands of years has no effect when it melts due to Archimedes principal.
-
Alan,
Your argument would be valid only if the average temperature stays relatively stable. if the air and water temperatures increase over time, the water gets progressively warmer and will expand. Expand in summer, contract in winter, but if the warming trend will continue, the net effect will be warmer and bigger oceans. Add to it the plastic pollution which will add the volume and change the water composition, and you have a situation without any historic precedents.
-
Alan,
Your argument would be valid only if the average temperature stays relatively stable. if the air and water temperatures increase over time, the water gets progressively warmer and will expand. Expand in summer, contract in winter, but if the warming trend will continue, the net effect will be warmer and bigger oceans. Add to it the plastic pollution which will add the volume and change the water composition, and you have a situation without any historic precedents.
Les, we can't lump everything together. Plastic pollution is a problem; we shouldn't do it. But let's not conflate it with global warming and sea levels. I can't imagine that the amount of plastic dumped into the ocean really has much effect on rising sea levels. Likewise, rising climate temperatures may expand sea water volume and raise sea levels to where it matters. But sea ice is not part of that problem due to Archimedes. It maybe a problem for polar bears. :)
-
You keep throwing in strawmen arguments and should know better that sea ice has nothing to do with your strawmen. Meltwater from glaciers or ice on land has nothing to do with sea ice, the subject in question. Sea water, regardless of how much freezes each year or melts each year to create sea ice, does not contribute to the raising or lowering of sea levels. It may reflect the warming or cooling of the climate or changing weather patterns, but doesn't change sea levels. Even the sea ice that may have been there before for thousands of years has no effect when it melts due to Archimedes principal.
May I suggest you read up on the Thermal expansion characteristics of water?
Coldwater (meltwater) only expands a bit when it starts exceeding 4 degrees Celsius (where water is densest). When it mixes with warmer water and is warmed by the air above, it too will gradually warm up. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands per degree of temperature rise.
Volumetric Temperature Coefficients - for Water
water at 0°C: -0.000050 (1/°C)
water at 4°C: 0 (1/oC)
water at 10°C: 0.000088 (1/°C)
water at 20°C: 0.000207 (1/°C)
water at 30°C: 0.000303 (1/°C)
Your argument that it follows the opposite path (shrinkage) during winter does not fly because the net volume of water that melts is larger than the volume that freezes. The Arctic region melts faster than it grows back elsewhere (in the antarctic or above land as snow/land-ice), so there will be a net increase of melted ice, i.e. water, and there is thus a net expansion of the water volume, which will thus expand when it warms, which will thus lead to rising water levels, as can be observed and measured.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's always perilous to argue against the laws of physical chemistry! ;D
-
If ALL the sea ice around the world melted, something that would probably take hundreds if not thousands of years, if at all, the sea level would increase around 4cm or 1 1/2". It's a non-problem.
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/170/1/145/2019346
-
May I suggest you read up on the Thermal expansion characteristics of water?
Coldwater (meltwater) only expands a bit when it starts exceeding 4 degrees Celsius (where water is densest). When it mixes with warmer water and is warmed by the air above, it too will gradually warm up. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands per degree of temperature rise.
Volumetric Temperature Coefficients - for Water
water at 0°C: -0.000050 (1/°C)
water at 4°C: 0 (1/oC)
water at 10°C: 0.000088 (1/°C)
water at 20°C: 0.000207 (1/°C)
water at 30°C: 0.000303 (1/°C)
Your argument that it follows the opposite path (shrinkage) during winter does not fly because the net volume of water that melts is larger than the volume that freezes. The Arctic region melts faster than it grows back elsewhere (in the antarctic or above land as snow/land-ice), so there will be a net increase of melted ice, i.e. water, and there is thus a net expansion of the water volume, which will thus expand when it warms, which will thus lead to rising water levels, as can be observed and measured.
Cheers,
Bart
As my last post shows, total loss of sea will raise ocean levels 1 1/2 inches or 4cm, a non problem. By flashing charts and formulas in trying to convince people of the catastrophe we are facing with sea ice melting, when there is no catastrophe, people like me question all your other claims as being hype. It's false advertising and people don't like to get hoodwinked. This is where global warming claimants have done a dis-service to your side by presenting over-reaching arguments. You're creating denialists. Stick to those areas where warming will make big changes. Don't make mountains out of molehills. People know when they're getting their pockets picked.
-
If the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea level would rise almost 19 feet. If the Greenland ice sheet went, that would be an additional 24 feet. If the East Antarctic ice sheet melted, that would be another 170 feet rise. To save some from having to take their shoes off to help with the adding-up, that would be a total rise of 213 feet. Just saying.
-
As my last post shows, total loss of sea will raise ocean levels 1 1/2 inches or 4cm, a non problem.
That paper seems to disregard Thermosteric effects, and mainly talks about Halosteric effects. The latter are not often talked about because of the relatively small effect the mixing of freshwater with saltwater has and that's because the freshwater is diluted a lot and basically doesn't change the salinity much. No revelation there.
I am still reading the paper you linked to, so maybe there is something else that they mention, but this is what I got from their introduction.
By flashing charts and formulas in trying to convince people of the catastrophe we are facing with sea ice melting, when there is no catastrophe, people like me question all your other claims as being hype. It's false advertising and people don't like to get hoodwinked. This is where global warming claimants have done a dis-service to your side by presenting over-reaching arguments. You're creating denialists. Stick to those areas where warming will make big changes. Don't make mountains out of molehills. People know when they're getting their pockets picked.
I'll try and avoid politics, which seems to work out badly for the national deficit, but fine for the upper 1%. Who's pockets are being picked one might ask, but I won't.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You guys are demonstrating what I wrote long ago in "A Common Cause":
"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous."
-
"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
Under this premise we pretty much should ignore weather forecasts.
-
"If there is a two-word phrase that should be excised from American journalism, it is 'study proves.'" Wow! How often have I seen one or another variant of that meaningless phrase in this thread?
Russ, usually your trolling comments just make me laugh but for this one you had to pick me up from the floor. The amount of BS you post here to make your point is really very funny.
After having pulled myself together I did a quick search for the word "prove" in this thread and quickly saw you were the one who are using those words most in the climate change context (obviously I ignored when it returned an "improve" or "approve", and also ignored a discussion on the relation between dairy consumption and bone vitality, which has little to do with climate)
But when you use the word "prove" it's in my mind no more than your opinion. I have no problem with your opinion, but the way you keep proving it by just reiterating it without any facts I find amazingly funny, especially now you start accusing others of misusing what you call a "meaningless phrase". Just count yourself how often you have used it yourself and you'll be amazed how necessary it is to follow your own advice.
-
Under this premise we pretty much should ignore weather forecasts.
I'd come close to endorsing that idea, Alan. When I was flying I didn't "ignore" weather forecasts, but I accepted them with a truckload of salt, and often found that the salt was correct and the forecasts way off base.
I told about the officers' club skit where the guy said that weather forecasts had improved 100% during his flying years. They used to be 2% accurate. Now they're 4% accurate. Things have improved since then with the help of satellites and more reliable radar, but last week, where I live, we went through three days of high rain probability without a drop of rain.
And these pretty much are the same folks who are sure they can predict climate conditions 50 or 100 years in the future. Sure they can.
-
Russ, usually your trolling comments just make me laugh but for this one you had to pick me up from the floor. The amount of BS you post here to make your point is really very funny.
After having pulled myself together I did a quick search for the word "prove" in this thread and quickly saw you were the one who are using those words most in the climate change context (obviously I ignored when it returned an "improve" or "approve", and also ignored a discussion on the relation between dairy consumption and bone vitality, which has little to do with climate)
But when you use the word "prove" it's in my mind no more than your opinion. I have no problem with your opinion, but the way you keep proving it by just reiterating it without any facts I find amazingly funny, especially now you start accusing others of misusing what you call a "meaningless phrase". Just count yourself how often you have used it yourself and you'll be amazed how necessary it is to follow your own advice.
Pieter, you're the one who's trying to prove that the "planet" is getting dangerously warmer. I don't have to "prove" a damned thing. All I have to do is sit back and laugh at the crap the global warmers come up with. Ehrlich should have been a warning to you all, but you have to be willing to look at the history of "scientific" predictions gone astray to understand that. I guess there's no time for that as long as you can make new predictions that'll turn out to be equally wrong.
-
No one needs to make predictions - the data shows the earth warming at an alarming rate. The magical thinking of climate change deniers might stop it happening, but it won't stop what has already happened.
-
Pieter, you're the one who's trying to prove that the "planet" is getting dangerously warmer.
Hi Russ,
There's no need to prove anything, just look at the records and where they are heading ..., not good.
It's the people who deny observable reality, that are the ones who ought to explain why they deny what's commonly accepted and supported by an overwhelming amount of scientific research and consensus. Perhaps even explain why they deny science as such while benefitting from its fruits of labor on a daily basis. But then we'd need to create a new thread on psychology instead ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump just cancelled the NASA program that tracks carbon and methane.
The White House has mounted a broad attack on climate science, repeatedly proposing cuts to NASA's earth science budget, including the CMS, and cancellations of climate missions such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3).
Scientific debates about the validity of climate models, sometimes contentious, is part of the development of a field of study. Political arguments about what to do about human-induced climate change is a complex topic of discussion, which our societies will be having for decades to come.
But to arbitrarily stop collecting data is a special kind of stupid. The USA used to be a beacon for much of the world. Sad to watch this happen.
-
The USA used to be a beacon for much of the world. Sad to watch this happen.
Indeed, it's becoming a warning beacon, to avoid and keep a safe distance from ...
Cheers
Bart
-
There's no need to prove anything, just look at the records and where they are heading ..., not good.
Cheers,
Bart
I'd edit that statement to say: "Look at where the records are coming from. . . not good."
-
I'd edit that statement to say: "Look at where the records are coming from. . . not good."
Hi Russ,
Are you e.g. denying NOAA/NASA (USA institutes), and (despite your background) even the US Department of Defense that says that due to the melting of Arctic ice, they now have to patrol the NorthWest passage, due to "The Arctic is warming on average twice as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in increased human activity in the region." ?
and
"The harsh Arctic environment and polar icecap have long enhanced U.S. security by acting as a significant physical barrier to
access to the U.S. homeland from the north, but the changing climate is allowing greater access to the region."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Tab_A_Arctic_Report_Public.pdf
I am looking at where the records come from, are you?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Russ,
Are you e.g. denying NOAA/NASA (USA institutes), and (despite your background) even the US Department of Defense that says that due to the melting of Arctic ice, they have to pay more attention to the NorthWest passage, due to "The Arctic is warming on average twice as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in increased human activity in the region." ?
and
"The harsh Arctic environment and polar icecap have long enhanced U.S. security by acting as a significant physical barrier to
access to the U.S. homeland from the north, but the changing climate is allowing greater access to the region."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Tab_A_Arctic_Report_Public.pdf
I am looking at where the records come from, are you?
Cheers,
Bart
That's one side of the equation. My argument is that's all climate change advocates look at. Only the negatives.
How about the positives of additional areas for mineral exploration that will open if the ice cap shrinks and the ability for ships to pass through the Northwest Passage free of ice? It's important that science, government and the media present us with all results of change not just those cherry picked to influence legislation and action toward favored outcomes by one group or another. Otherwise we'll make uninformed and biased decisions and waste resources that might have been used more productively.
-
That's one side of the equation. My argument is that's all climate change advocates look at. Only the negatives.
How about the positives of additional areas for mineral exploration that will open if the ice cap shrinks and the ability for ships to pass through the Northwest Passage free of ice?
Hi Allan,
Are you aware of the fact that Russian submarines have already planted their flag on the bottom of those "mineral exploration sites"? And that "ships to pass through the Northwest Passage", might be Russian? The DoD has.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Allan,
Are you aware of the fact that Russian submarines have already planted their flag on the bottom of those "mineral exploration sites"? And that "ships to pass through the Northwest Passage", might be Russian? The DoD has.
Cheers,
Bart
There you go again turning the warming into a negative. The fact is that minerals and potential huge wealth will be available if reduced sea ice in the Arctic allows exploration. The American navy is there and so is the Canadian navy as well as the Russians and five other nations as we all have territory in the Arctic and have to defend it to keep it.
-
There you go again turning the warming into a negative. The fact is that minerals and potential huge wealth will be available if reduced sea ice in the Arctic allows exploration. The American navy is there and so is the Canadian navy as well as the Russians and five other nations as we all have territory in the Arctic and have to defend it to keep it.
There you go again turning the warming into a positive. Why is it so hard to understand that these issues have multiple effects, positive and negative. It's the balance that counts!
And the balance is negative, it will cost our generation, but especially future generations, dearly. And not just in money but also in health.
To give you an idea, in my home town, the people on one side of town on average live 6 months shorter than those on the other side, due to pollution (particulate matter). And that's a finding that surfaced through epidemiological research. The PM sources are 70-80% anthropogenic versus 20-30% from natural sources like e.g. sea salt (we predominantly have wind directions coming from the sea) and pollen and decaying biomatter. And it's not just that these people will keel over faster, but they will suffer from all sorts of diseases like Cardiovascular issues and failure of organs like kidneys. So they will already become less productive and less healthy earlier in life, and will need more medical intervention (and thus face higher costs if they can pay for them).
What will happen in the Arctic is, territorial conflicts, drilling for oil, oil-spills that kill ocean life, and more burning of fossil fuel to accelerate the global warming even more (after it was already boosted again by the Albedo reduction from the loss of ice).
Being prepared, or better yet reducing/preventing such things from spiraling out of control, makes a whole lot more sense than closing one's eyes and hoping it will go away (spoiler alert: it won't go away). And prevention is a lot cheaper in the end as well, so it also makes more economic sense.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars to reverse CO2 with no guarantee it will change the climate. In any case, where does that money come from? No one, especially the worse polluter the Chinese, will spend a dime on it. Even European countries have backed off and are not meeting their Paris commitments. Maybe more money should be spent helping those people on the other side of your town pay for medical care and change particulate pollution rather than worrying about some climate change dream that might happen or not happen 75 years from now.
Meanwhile, the people who build in flood zones by the shore here in New Jersey have lots of money. They have flood insurance (paid by the government) and are now building their homes on stilts so the next hurricane like Sandy will wash under their first floor leaving them unaffected. They don't seem to be that concerned with Sandy's, higher tides, or sea levels or they would have moved inland where I live.
-
No one needs to make predictions - the data shows the earth warming at an alarming rate. The magical thinking of climate change deniers might stop it happening, but it won't stop what has already happened.
Hi Bill, You gotta remember that I've been seeing this kind of bullshit for seventy years now, quite a bit longer than you've been alive. First, in the late forties, it was the imminence of a new ice age, a belief supported by all sorts of reliable data. I believed that one. My much loved aunt, who was a geology PhD and head of the geology department at a major university was convinced. So was her husband, my favorite uncle, a nationally-known geophysicist. But later on that prediction (which was "settled science") faded away. The crap that's going on now will fade the same way that scare faded away. As several people, myself included, have pointed out, the earth always is either warming or cooling. None of the global warming true believers will dare touch on that fact. It's been mentioned several times in this thread, and always ignored. Being a true believer won't change things.
-
Hi Bill, You gotta remember that I've been seeing this kind of bullshit for seventy years now, quite a bit longer than you've been alive. First, in the late forties, it was the imminence of a new ice age, a belief supported by all sorts of reliable data. I believed that one.
Russ, maybe you didn't listen well enough, it takes some 14000 years from now to reach a new Ice-age. Your aunt and her husband knew that, and are still right (unless we screw the system out of balance).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Russ, maybe you didn't listen well enough, it takes some 14000 years from now to reach a new Ice-age. Your aunt and her husband knew that, and are still right (unless we screw the system out of balance).
Cheers,
Bart
There are some arguments being made that global warming from CO2 will forestall the next ice age. So maybe CO2 is good? I live in a 55+ community where many retired residents are "snow birds". They move to Florida for a few months during the winter where it's around 30-40 degrees hotter than here in New Jersey. Europeans flood to Florida and the Caribbean during the winter too.
So who cares about 2 degrees warmer. :)
-
Les, would you mind if it got 2 degrees hotter up there in Canada?
-
Russ, maybe you didn't listen well enough, it takes some 14000 years from now to reach a new Ice-age. Your aunt and her husband knew that, and are still right (unless we screw the system out of balance).
Cheers,
Bart
Wrong. There was a block that was going to change ocean currents. The new ice age was going to come almost as fast as you seen to think the new heat wave will come. For the past fifteen years there's been no warming, and for the past two or so there's been cooling. Yeah, I know that if you're a true believer in the religion of global warming you think that's just a pause. Keep watching. It may be. It may not be. You don't know. Nobody knows. (But of course it's settled science in the global warming catechism.)
-
For the more visually oriented climate change deniers, here are some pictures of the Drastic and Deadly Impacts of Climate Change
Damage and risks across USA from Florida to Alaska, and from East Coast to California
https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/drastic-impacts-of-climate-change-are-growing-14581752
(34 images - best to switch to "Show on one page" mode)
-
Les, would you mind if it got 2 degrees hotter up there in Canada?
Well, Canadian snowbirds would appreciate any warming trends, but not the polar bears. Also not the hikers, who will have to deal with more ticks and mosquitos.
The effects of warming are felt not only by Canadians, but also in the northern US states. On my winter drives to Florida, I noticed more frequent occurences of heavy accumulation of lake snow on i 90 from Buffalo to Cleveland, and also on i 79 south. It can get quite dangerous there anytime between November and March.
Here is a video about how will climate change affect Cleveland.
http://www.cleveland.com/weather/blog/index.ssf/2018/01/what_effects_will_climate_chan.html
-
Les, would you mind if it got 2 degrees hotter up there in Canada?
Would you mind if the Dakotas turned into Death Valley or if the Columbia river dried up (more than it already has, I mean)?
No need to answer, these are rhetorical questions.
-
It's in the bones.
For the past few years I found my fingers turning white (in Mallorca!) - Raynaud's friggin' syndrome - and then this year, I managed to avoid that without doing anything at all. Winter has felt longer, more dry, but less cold. Almost forty years ago, winter here meant amazing thunderstorms and torrential rains in autumn and winter. Lightning now appears more often in studios than in nature. There was very little snow on the mountains this time, and the almond blossom season passed me completely by; the cherry outside the office window seemed to last a day.
We used to get visiting robins every winter - very fierce little guys, but relatively fearless of people and friendly; I have not had such a visitor in a couple of years; also, the blackbirds seem to be elsewhere. I suspect our feathered friends have a more acutely tuned ear to nature than do we.
Rob
-
Hi guys, All you "scientists" might be interested in an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia, who founded the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Here's his final paragraph:
"Currently, seal-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperatures, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so -- a far cry from Al Gore's alarming numbers. There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We'd better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher."
The body of the article explains why this is so.
Oh dear. Another "denier," also known within the religion as an "unbeliever" or "infidel."
-
One morning about two months ago, I've seen with my own eyes in Ft. Lauderdale that the sea water spilled overnight over almost the entire beach width, The beach in that place is at least 100 ft wide and several feet high. I have never seen that in the 40 years before.
“Nothing in the next 100 years is going to change South Florida’s built environment more than climate change,” said Jeff Huber of Florida Atlantic University.
Lately those reminders have become more frequent. The rate of sea-level rise has tripled over the last decade, according to a recent study from the University of Miami, bringing with it more frequent coastal flooding. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects that Miami-Dade County will see about 15 inches of sea-level rise by 2045.
https://archpaper.com/2017/04/south-florida-rising-sea-levels/
-
We used to get visiting robins every winter - very fierce little guys, but relatively fearless of people and friendly; I have not had such a visitor in a couple of years; also, the blackbirds seem to be elsewhere. I suspect our feathered friends have a more acutely tuned ear to nature than do we.
Good point, Rob.
Not only our feathered friends, but most plants and animals, including our early ancestors who gradually moved out of Africa in search of greener pastures, between 120,000 and 60,000 years ago during the time of the last Ice Age when sea levels were 120 metres lower than present, at the height of the ice Age, and around 4-6 metres lower 120,000 years ago.
One major reason why many people are so easily alarmed about the effects of climate change is because they are stuck in particular locations, attached to their expensive homes and apartments in cities, and find the pseudo-scientific narrative that they can be kept safe from extreme weather events and rising sea levels by reducing CO2 levels, very comforting.
-
It's because of the falling rocks: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html).
-
It's because of the falling rocks: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/mo-brooks-nasa-climate-change/index.html).
That's just misleading propaganda put out by the junk food industry.
The real cause, and which explains the cyclical nature of the rising sea phenomenon, is the increase in the number of "large" people going swimming every summer. This is patently measurable in the Mediterranean which, as every schoolboy knows, is virtually landlocked. Even a rapid application of the Archimedes Eureka Moment will show the truth of this, something which all of the same schoolboys learn at their mother's knee. If for different reasons.
-
That's just misleading propaganda put out by the junk food industry.
The real cause, and which explains the cyclical nature of the rising sea phenomenon, is the increase in the number of "large" people going swimming every summer. This is patently measurable in the Mediterranean which, as every schoolboy knows, is virtually landlocked. Even a rapid application of the Archimedes Eureka Moment will show the truth of this, something which all of the same schoolboys learn at their mother's knee. If for different reasons.
How does the Mediterranean Sea stay so clean looking like the Caribbean? It is mostly landlocked and doesn't it get a lot of crap runoffs?
-
They put blue flags on the beaches and that means they are clean. Don't argue with City Hall and the tourist business.
You are probably seeing the reflection of all the blue plastic in the fish. In the 60s, my dentist refused to set foot in the Med because of all the bugs he described.
:-)
-
That's just misleading propaganda put out by the junk food industry.
The real cause, and which explains the cyclical nature of the rising sea phenomenon, is the increase in the number of "large" people going swimming every summer. This is patently measurable in the Mediterranean which, as every schoolboy knows, is virtually landlocked. Even a rapid application of the Archimedes Eureka Moment will show the truth of this, something which all of the same schoolboys learn at their mother's knee. If for different reasons.
In the interest of science, one has to consider also larger volume of water displaced by males under influence of Viagra.
-
Yes the sky is falling because our law makers are idiots. RUINOUS LANDSCAPE!
Here is more scary news about how our lawmakers think - shoot me now!
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise
-
In the interest of science, one has to consider also larger volume of water displaced by males under influence of Viagra.
Probably the real reason for climate change, Les.
-
Yes the sky is falling because our law makers are idiots. RUINOUS LANDSCAPE!
Here is more scary news about how our lawmakers think - shoot me now!
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise
The article writer is twisting his words. His main point was: ""Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said. That's a truthful scientific observation that cannot be refuted. Making fun of the question by calling it Dover rocks shows the bias in the article writer.
Things that could contribute to "...sea levels rising and the bottom moving up..."are erosion of soil that rivers wash into the seas and the sinking of land which would raise the levels also. There's something included in that he didn't mention but that I have raised as a question. How much do volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates rising under the seas contribute to the seas rising. I don't know the answer. But it's a legitimate question. Brushing off that question and calling the questioner ignorant is not a scientific answer but a political one. One of the problems with those who support global warming is that their minds are made up. They refuse to even listen to real scientific questions and brush them off as coming from ignorant people. You're not going to get people to join your side if you keep making fun of them. You ought to be polite and answer the questions.
-
In the interest of science, one has to consider also larger volume of water displaced by males under influence of Viagra.
Yes, and in the fight against the problem, the infamous 18-30s holiday company is disbanding. I understand it was causing huge surges in an otherwise tide-free sea. Also, in answer to Alan, the blue is result of contamination from the blue pills (I take their colour on trust: by the time I may have required them I was already victim to beta blockers. Our medical photographer friends will understand and perhaps extend their sympathy for the side-effects of saving life.
Now, 'tis academic.
:-(
-
Things that could contribute to "...sea levels rising and the bottom moving up..."are erosion of soil that rivers wash into the seas and the sinking of land which would raise the levels also. There's something included in that he didn't mention but that I have raised as a question. How much do volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates rising under the seas contribute to the seas rising. I don't know the answer. But it's a legitimate question. Brushing off that question and calling the questioner ignorant is not a scientific answer but a political one. One of the problems with those who support global warming is that their minds are made up. They refuse to even listen to real scientific questions and brush them off as coming from ignorant people. You're not going to get people to join your side if you keep making fun of them. You ought to be polite and answer the questions.
I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet. Such conflicting evidence can be the secret to a better understanding of the processes under investigation.
I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.
In this context, I'm reminded of a recent major scientific achievement; the cracking of the human genome a few decades ago. The genes that were decoded represented less than 5% of the human genome. The other 95% were described as 'junk' DNA, left-over remnants from our past evolution.
I'm proud it was an Australian scientist who was the first to debunk this idea of 'junk DNA'. His name was Dr Malcolm Simons. Here's the story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
"From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.
It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring."
-
The falling rocks problem is because of perverse incentives, which distort the free market. If we imposed a tax on gravity, the problem would go away.
Not sure what to do about those overweight people who insist on going swimming. When they go home for supper, does sea level drop?
-
I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet. Such conflicting evidence can be the secret to a better understanding of the processes under investigation.
I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.
In this context, I'm reminded of a recent major scientific achievement; the cracking of the human genome a few decades ago. The genes that were decoded represented less than 5% of the human genome. The other 95% were described as 'junk' DNA, left-over remnants from our past evolution.
I'm proud it was an Australian scientist who was the first to debunk this idea of 'junk DNA'. His name was Dr Malcolm Simons. Here's the story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm
"From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.
It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring."
Ray, it was also two Australians that went against all scientific belief at the time, that stated stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Doctors were using methods to cure it based on that assumption, including removal of parts of their stomach. My mother had this issue. These doctors thought it was a bacteria but were laughed at for years and years. Today, it's now accepted because of their work and the disease is treated with antibiotics. The doctors wound up receiving the Nobel. The point being that we should all remain open to opposing viewpoints. We may learn something.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283743/
-
... Not sure what to do about those overweight people who insist on going swimming. When they go home for supper, does sea level drop?
Well, duh!
Never heard of high tide and low tide, huh?
-
First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.
Vattenfall’s battery@pyc, the largest co-located battery installation in the United Kingdom, is now operational and stores renewable wind power from Vattenfall’s Welsh onshore wind farm Pen y Cymoedd. The 22 MW facility, which shares electrical infrastructure with the Pen y Cymoedd wind farm, will help UK National Grid maintain frequency levels and reliability of electricity supply, by storing electricity produced by the wind farm
Gunnar Groebler, Senior Vice President Business Area Wind, said: “Vattenfall is on the road to a smart, digitalised future, free from fossil fuels. I can think of few other energy installations that better demonstrate what that future looks like than this battery installation.”
(http://www.sunwindenergy.com/sites/default/files/field/image/wind_vattenfall_batterie_at_pyc_2_mittel.jpg)
http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk
-
First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.
(http://www.sunwindenergy.com/sites/default/files/field/image/wind_vattenfall_batterie_at_pyc_2_mittel.jpg)
http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk
Les what was the cost of the battery bank? How much per household? How many households is it storing electricity for? (NOte that article is confiusing. The wind farms produce electricity for 13% of Wales. There is no statistic for the batteries. However, if you allow 1000kwh per household, 22mw that's storage for 22,000 homes for one hour. Maybe my statistics are wrong and someone can correct them. But the point is the batteries store relatively little power.)
What was the cost of the wind farm? Per household? What was the cost of previously carbon supplied electricity? You have to compare the two processes to determine the advantages of each.
Also, what happens when the wind stops blowing? You still need standby carbon supplied generators to operate during lulls. So the cost to maintain these is still required.
I'm not against alternatives to carbon produced electricity. But when we look at the alternatives, you have to consider cost. Capital is finite. If you spend it on batteries, you can't spend it on cancer research.
-
I don't have answers for any of your questions, Alan
The only thing I could think of was that you could make millions of iPhone batteries from all that lithium.
I think Tesla's new battery in Australia is even bigger. Here is a recent article, describing how well this battery performed during recent power failures:
Less than a month after Tesla unveiled a new backup power system in South Australia, the world’s largest lithium-ion battery is already being put to the test. And it appears to be far exceeding expectations: In the past three weeks alone, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has smoothed out at least two major energy outages, responding even more quickly than the coal-fired backups that were supposed to provide emergency power.
Tesla’s battery last week kicked in just 0.14 seconds after one of Australia’s biggest plants, the Loy Yang facility in the neighbouring state of Victoria, suffered a sudden, unexplained drop in output, according to the International Business Times. And the week before that, another failure at Loy Yang prompted the Hornsdale battery to respond in as little as four seconds — or less, according to some estimates — beating other plants to the punch. State officials have called the response time “a record,” according to local media.
The effectiveness of Tesla’s battery is being closely watched in a region that is in the grips of an energy crisis. The price of electricity is soaring in Australia, particularly in the state of South Australia, where a 2016 outage led 1.7 million residents to lose power in a blackout. Storms and heat waves have caused additional outages, and many Australians are bracing for more with the onset of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.
-
I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet.
That is an attempt at making a mockery of the Scientific process. New evidence does not have to concord with current consensus, it is used to support existing observations/evidence or not. A consensus is something that emerges from the body of observations.
It's also not helpful to deny simple chemical properties of elements or plain physics and waste huge amounts of time and tax payer's money on "fully investigating" largely irrelevant alternatives.
Like this waste of valuable time by several committee members, trying to deny science:
Clean air, water on voters’ agenda, but not Congress’
Despite voters, Congress has yet another debate on whether climate change is real.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/clean-air-water-on-voters-agenda-but-not-congress/
So Who are these representatives representing if not their constituency????
Are they debating in order to get sponsored by industry for re-election, or are they trying to improve the lives/health of their constituency and the long-term economic outlook?
Here's the recording of the 'hearing' (so one can make up their own mind):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj2YNlm6y_0
It's equally amazing that after 13 months, the head of the EPA has not found the time to appear before the committee (or has not been invited?).
I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.
Your recollection is biased/inaccurate/selective, as usual, and it is wrong.
Maybe you do have a refreshing opinion about this, and how that will help to reduce CO2 emissions:
http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/exports
https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/australian-coal-exports-set-new-record-in-2017/
http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/
Cheers,
Bart
-
First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.
(http://www.sunwindenergy.com/sites/default/files/field/image/wind_vattenfall_batterie_at_pyc_2_mittel.jpg)
http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk
Looks awful! And there are 76 of them? I see only 7 in the photo. ;)
I prefer to see trees and a natural landscape. The advantage of solar power is that the panels can be placed over surfaces which already exist for another purpose, such as house, garage and shed roofs. As battery storage and solar panels become less expensive, we might eventually reach the stage where the average householder is not only able to fully produce their own electricity requirements at a reasonable cost, but also sell significant amounts of surplus electricity, especially if they have designed their house and roof so that the whole roof is angled towards the sun and the entire roof is suitable for covering with solar panels.
The main concern is, do we have the resources of rare earth metals and Lithium in order to make this paradigm shift whereby most people will be driving electric cars which they can recharge at home from their own solar produced electricity?
-
That is an attempt at making a mockery of the Scientific process. New evidence does not have to concord with current consensus, it is used to support existing observations/evidence or not. A consensus is something that emerges from the body of observations.
Making a mockery of the scientific process? Not at all. You seem to have missed the point again. Once a consensus has developed there is usually a strong resistance to that consensus being broken. That is simply human nature. People have careers and reputations to protect, and need employment in their chosen career to support themselves and their families.
The complexity and chaotic nature of weather and climate changes, and the long timescales involved before a consistent trend can be observed, make it impossible to apply the rigorous procedures of the scientific methodology of verification and falsification.
Just as it's impossible to verify that small increases in a particular trace gas, such as CO2, will have long-term, harmful effects, it's also impossible to falsify that hypothesis. Therefore scientific certainty on the issue is not possible.
The people who are truly making a real mockery of the scientific process, are those who are expressing certainty on the issue, not only that increases in CO2 levels are the main cause of the current, slight warming period, but also that such warming will be bad for humanity in general. Got it? ;)
It's also not helpful to deny simple chemical properties of elements or plain physics and waste huge amounts of time and tax payer's money on "fully investigating" largely irrelevant alternatives.
Who has been denying basic chemical properties of elements, or basic physics? Have I ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I'm quite capable of understanding that CO2, Nitrous Oxides, Methane, Water Vapour, and so on, are better able to absorb the lower frequencies of the Electromagnet Spectrum, known as infrared waves which are associated with heat. Greenhouse gases are essential for life on our planet.
CO2 in particular is a potential asset which we would exploit if we were smart enough.
-
... I'm not against alternatives to carbon produced electricity. But when we look at the alternatives, you have to consider cost...
Or the fact that Tesla lost $20 billions in 15 years.
-
Looks awful! And there are 76 of them? I see only 7 in the photo. ;)
I prefer to see trees and a natural landscape. The advantage of solar power is that the panels can be placed over surfaces which already exist for another purpose, such as house, garage and shed roofs. As battery storage and solar panels become less expensive, we might eventually reach the stage where the average householder is not only able to fully produce their own electricity requirements at a reasonable cost, but also sell significant amounts of surplus electricity, especially if they have designed their house and roof so that the whole roof is angled towards the sun and the entire roof is suitable for covering with solar panels.
The main concern is, do we have the resources of rare earth metals and Lithium in order to make this paradigm shift whereby most people will be driving electric cars which they can recharge at home from their own solar produced electricity?
The article mentions that the Vattenfall battery is made up of six shipping container sized units, five of which house 500 i3 BMW manufactured lithium-ion battery packs.
I was wondering about all the other containers, too. That picture looks indeed awful. The most disturbing is the crooked horizon on that photo. How can you trust engineers who can't keep their lines straight?
Collecting solar energy through panels is one thing, storing it on a large scale is much more demanding. Using the large batteries to help out with electricity interruptions and peaks is a very sound and practical idea, taking advantage of technology which didn't exist before. BTW, energy can be stored also in other ways, not only in electrical form.
-
Or the fact that Tesla lost $20 billions in 15 years.
That's a known fact, every day I came across some news announcing impending demise of Tesla. They are investing heavily into new manufacturing plants and new technologies which cost time and money. They are indeed in a precarious situation, and Elon Musk is dealing with multiple companies and projects, maybe their gamble will pan out, maybe not.
Amazon was also losing money for many years, but now it is firing on all cylinders. 5 years ago, $300 price per AMZN share seemed exceedingly lofty but comparing it with the latest price of over $1,500, it was a bargain.
-
I still wouldn't buy Tesla or Amazon. But I wish them well. They are US corporations, and their success only makes America richer, stronger and more successful. Maybe they will start paying taxes too.
-
That's a known fact, every day I came across some news announcing impending demise of Tesla. They are investing heavily into new manufacturing plants and new technologies which cost time and money. They are indeed in a precarious situation, and Elon Musk is dealing with multiple companies and projects, maybe their gamble will pan out, maybe not.
Amazon was also losing money for many years, but now it is firing on all cylinders. 5 years ago, $300 price per AMZN share seemed exceedingly lofty but comparing it with the latest price of over $1,500, it was a bargain.
Except Tesla is not an internet startup... it is a car manufacturer.
-
I agree, that if it was only cars, Tesla wouldn't stand much chance (compared with other established car manufacturers). Personally, I think their battery division has a much brighter future. Their Solar division has been also losing money, but with the new solar roof tiles they can tap into home construction in a big way. And put a Tesla car and one or two of their battery packs into each garage. The potential is there, and they are uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of all those synergies (as long as they won't run before out of money). Apple was once also in a very similar situation and until recently most analysts wrote off Tim Cook as an incompetent CEO.
-
The price of Tesla cars in Australia is ridiculous. They range from 92,070 to 211,200 Australian dollars. I recently bought a new car because my old Daewoo wagon was costing too much to service, after 17 years of use.
My new car is a Kia Cerato, a 2 litre, 4-door Hatchback with a 7 year, unlimited-kilometre warranty. It cost me only 20,000 Aussie dollars.
The mileage on my old Daewoo was 160,000 km. At a fuel consumption rate of approximately 10 km per litre, which is the claimed efficiency of my new car, that would translate to 16,000 litres of fuel over another 17 year period. At an average cost of, say, $1.30 per litre, the total cost of petrol over that 17 year period would be around $20,800.
In other words, I've will have paid $40,800 for a car which costs nothing to run, which is less than half the cost of the cheapest Tesla which excludes the electricity costs for each recharge and the eventual replacement of the battery.
The Tesla vehicle doesn't seem like a good economic proposition to me. ;)
-
Making a mockery of the scientific process? Not at all. You seem to have missed the point again. Once a consensus has developed there is usually a strong resistance to that consensus being broken.
Resistance? A consensus in findings is about observations that happen to give similar outcomes. Observations do not resist. So it not clear what you are talking about, unless you think there is some kind of conspiracy amongst many thousands of scientists.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Tesla vehicle doesn't seem like a good economic proposition to me. ;)
But Tesla roof could be.
(https://www.tesla.com/tesla_theme/assets/img/energy/solar/T-Sroof-SmoothGlass.jpg?20180111)
-
But Tesla roof could be.
Yes. That's a great roof. It should also cost less to design a roof which incorporates solar panels, rather than adding the panels later. However, the current cost of batteries will probably result in rather expensive electricity. ;)
-
Resistance? A consensus in findings is about observations that happen to give similar outcomes. Observations do not resist. So it not clear what you are talking about, unless you think there is some kind of conspiracy amongst many thousands of scientists.
Cheers,
Bart
Not when the issue is beyond the application of the scientific processes of verification and falsification because of such a multitude of interactions, positive and negative feed-backs, enormous complexity, elements of chaos, long time scales for a consistent trend to be observed, and relatively poor and inaccurate proxy records from the past with which to compare the present climate.
As I mentioned before, the Technical summary of the latest IPCC report stated there was low confidence that floods, droughts and storms had been increasing during the previous 50 years or so, on a global scale. Floods, droughts and storms are major events, yet climate science observations are not even able to determine with confidence whether or not they have been increasing in recent times. What does that tell you?
-
I agree, that if it was only cars, Tesla wouldn't stand much chance (compared with other established car manufacturers). Personally, I think their battery division has a much brighter future. Their Solar division has been also losing money, but with the new solar roof tiles they can tap into home construction in a big way. And put a Tesla car and one or two of their battery packs into each garage. The potential is there, and they are uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of all those synergies (as long as they won't run before out of money). Apple was once also in a very similar situation and until recently most analysts wrote off Tim Cook as an incompetent CEO.
I wouldn't buy Apple either. They're a one-horse stable.
-
. . .unless you think there is some kind of conspiracy amongst many thousands of scientists.
Cheers,
Bart
Maybe not thousands, Bart, but hundreds, and perhaps thousands. People who are more concerned with political power than with their science.
-
Something for the deniers to read and digest, and for the rest of us to use as an educational tool.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
-
I wouldn't buy Apple either. They're a one-horse stable.
But what a horse! BTW, Warren Buffet added just in the last quarter another 75 million APPL shares. He is known for value investing.
-
Something for the deniers to read and digest, and for the rest of us to use as an educational tool.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
A scientific "consensus," Peter? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. I guess I'm a "denier." That would make you a "true believer" or a "devotee" or a "disciple," or within that "scientific consensus" "orthodox."
-
But what a horse! BTW, Warren Buffet added just in the last quarter another 75 million APPL shares. He is known for value investing.
My wife agrees. She owns Apple and always follows what Buffet is doing. She's smarter than me. :)
On the other hand, I always feel that Apple's one-horse stable is like playing musical chairs. One of these days, the music is going to stop, and there won't be enough chairs for everyone to sit down.
-
She is smarter than most of the investment analysts.
-
Hi guys, All you "scientists" might be interested in an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at University of Virginia, who founded the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Here's his final paragraph:
"Currently, seal-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperatures, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so -- a far cry from Al Gore's alarming numbers. There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We'd better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher."
The body of the article explains why this is so.
Oh dear. Another "denier," also known within the religion as an "unbeliever" or "infidel."
this is like quoting Lysenko on genetics.
-
Or the fact that Tesla lost $20 billions in 15 years.
another false analogy. Look at the savings from hybrid vehicles that use less gasoline and cost 1/4 of a Tesla
-
I still wouldn't buy Tesla or Amazon. But I wish them well. They are US corporations, and their success only makes America richer, stronger and more successful. Maybe they will start paying taxes too.
amazon pays lots of taxes and it's too bad you are not a shareholder, you would be extremely wealthy
-
this is like quoting Lysenko on genetics.
I'm sure it seems that way to a true believer like yourself, Alan. After all, Singer is a "denier," also known within your religion as an "heretic."
-
I wouldn't buy Apple either. They're a one-horse stable.
good that Warren Buffett has a different view on Apple than you do (disclosure, I have owner Berkshire Hathaway for many years). I think B-H may be one of b the largest Apple shareholders now.
-
My wife agrees. She owns Apple and always follows what Buffet is doing. She's smarter than me. :)
On the other hand, I always feel that Apple's one-horse stable is like playing musical chairs. One of these days, the music is going to stop, and there won't be enough chairs for everyone to sit down.
what you are missing is that Apple is an industrial design company first v and foremost. All the b early technology originated at Xerox PARC and HP.
-
I'm sure it seems that way to a true believer like yourself, Alan. After all, Singer is a "denier," also known within your religion as an "heretic."
there are always outliers in science who are never proven right; Singer is one of them. The only platform he has these days is the Wall Street Journal. It is pretty much equivalent to my posts here on LuLa, the same amount of peer review.
-
Not when the issue is beyond the application of the scientific processes of verification and falsification because of such a multitude of interactions, positive and negative feed-backs, enormous complexity, elements of chaos, long time scales for a consistent trend to be observed, and relatively poor and inaccurate proxy records from the past with which to compare the present climate.
You're trying to wriggle out of it, but it still doesn't make sense.
With complex dynamics, it is customary to make models that allow testing of those interactions without having to wait for them to happen. The procedure/model is peer reviewed and if almost all others arrive at the same conclusions, and find that the model is adequate, there emerges a consensus about the findings.
As I mentioned before, the Technical summary of the latest IPCC report stated there was low confidence that floods, droughts and storms had been increasing during the previous 50 years or so, on a global scale. Floods, droughts and storms are major events, yet climate science observations are not even able to determine with confidence whether or not they have been increasing in recent times. What does that tell you?
Exactly what they say in the report, that the (historical) data is lacking in some respects (e.g. measuring location had to be moved due to rising water levels, or urbanisation coming too close to avoid interference, or no prior measuring point available but now a new point has been made available for improved coverage and data quality going forward). Sometimes a new method of data collection is replacing a less accurate method. So there is no longer an exact 1:1 relationship between historical measuring locations and new measuring locations in the same area. That's all.
It seems like I still have to explain it, "confidence levels," tell something about the data quality and consensus that follows from those observations. You are presumably still thinking that it is the same as a likelihood, but that's something else (i.e. the probability of something happening).
The confidence level can be increased by e.g. more frequent observations or more accurate observations, or spatially more dense observations. This becomes easier now than it was in the past, because the quality of sensors is increasing, and the cost is often dropping, thus allowing to deploy more of them (where few or none were there before). The larger quantities also allow to more easily identify outliers, and its data can then be validated or rejected before being added to the final dataset.
Cheers,
Bart
-
another false analogy. Look at the savings from hybrid vehicles that use less gasoline and cost 1/4 of a Tesla
You're not going to save money buying a Tesla. The initial cost is too high.
You do save money probably driving a car like a Prius. But you are spending 10 or $15,000 for Batteries instead of getting luxury features. If I really wanted to save money, I would sell my cars and take public transportation. But driving has its own reward just from driving. It's a pleasure to drive. I'm not looking to save money. Performance and features are more important to me then saving a few cents by driving a hybrid that's ugly as sin.
-
another false analogy. Look at the savings from hybrid vehicles that use less gasoline and cost 1/4 of a Tesla
What analogy? I didn’t make any, just a simple observation about the broader cost of something that is supposed to be saving.
Savings from hybrids? Every time I looked into hybrids, that math did not work. The number of years and the number of miles needed just to break even because of their initial higher price tag didn’t make sense for me (your hybrid mileage might vary, of course). And that math didn’t even include the price of the battery that needed to be changed after several years.
-
You're not going to save money buying a Tesla. The initial cost is too high.
You do save money probably driving a car like a Prius. But you are spending 10 or $15,000 for Batteries instead of getting luxury features. If I really wanted to save money, I would sell my cars and take public transportation. But driving has its own reward just from driving. It's a pleasure to drive. I'm not looking to save money. Performance and features are more important to me then saving a few cents by driving a hybrid that's ugly as sin.
you can only forsake a car where there is sufficient public transit. We are in San Sebastian Spain right now and every place is either v walkable or by bus/ taxi. Of course it's a small city. I think where you live in NJ it would be difficult to b not have a car. The same goes for me in Bethesda. When I was working I never drove; walked to the subway and was at work, total time 35 minutes combined.
Texas are hugely expensive and we have no clue whether the venture won succeed. There is probably greater potential for success in China. Berkshire Hathaway has a large stake in a Chinese battery plant. I saw some comments on this from Charlie Muncher at the recent annual meeting.
-
you can only forsake a car where there is sufficient public transit. We are in San Sebastian Spain right now and every place is either v walkable or by bus/ taxi. Of course it's a small city. I think where you live in NJ it would be difficult to b not have a car. The same goes for me in Bethesda. When I was working I never drove; walked to the subway and was at work, total time 35 minutes combined.
Texas are hugely expensive and we have no clue whether the venture won succeed. There is probably greater potential for success in China. Berkshire Hathaway has a large stake in a Chinese battery plant. I saw some comments on this from Charlie Muncher at the recent annual meeting.
I lived in NYC (Queens), a place with wonderful public transportation, most of my life and would never give up a private automobile. There are often times and weather conditions that make driving easier than buses and trains. Who wants to wait at a bus stop in a rain storm? Also, when you want to get out of the city to explore and photograph places like the Catskills, or just go on a road trip for the day, well a car is just one of those pleasures in life. When I shoot with my MF equipment, it's just too heavy to transport on a bus. I leave it in the trunk of car to use on a minutes notice. Anyway, who doesn't just like the new car smell when you climb in?
-
You're trying to wriggle out of it, but it still doesn't make sense.
Really! So you disagree with my description of the scientific methodology; the necessity for verification under controlled conditions, and the creation of experiments designed to reveal the falsity of the theories under examination, before reasonable certainty can be achieved?
With complex dynamics, it is customary to make models that allow testing of those interactions without having to wait for them to happen. The procedure/model is peer reviewed and if almost all others arrive at the same conclusions, and find that the model is adequate, there emerges a consensus about the findings.
Bart, I'm amazed that you seem to be in denial of the importance of the scientific methodology. Can you not see the contradiction in your above statement? You claim it is customary to make models that project results, without having to wait for them to happen, then you go on to say if most others find that the model is accurate, a consensus emerges about the findings.
How on earth can you determine that the models are accurate without waiting for the projected results to happen? It sounds to me that you are the one who is trying to wriggle out. ;)
This principle is fundamental to the scientific methodology. One creates a hypothesis based upon the available evidence. One sets up experiments under controlled conditions, and models to predict what will happen with a change of one or more variables, then one not only has to wait the appropriate period of time to see if the models' predictions are correct, but one has to have the capacity to observe the results.
For example, a few decades ago, models predicted that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. I think there was a consensus among astrophysicist that this was the case, which included the late Stephen Hawking.
However, when we developed the capacity to observe the outer reaches of the universe with the advanced Hubble telescope, scientists were amazed to discover the the expansion of the universe appeared to be accelerating; the opposite of what the models predicted.
When this sort of thing happens there are often many possible explanations. The models could be flawed. The theories on which the models were based could be flawed. The observations could be misinterpreted. Undetectable or unknown factors could be influencing the results.
In the case of the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe, it is the latter explanation which has gained the largest consensus, that is, the possible existence of huge quantities of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which are invisible and undetectable.
However, no-one has yet detected a single particle of Dark Matter. Here is a recent article describing the problem.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/dark-energy-may-not-exist
Exactly what they say in the report, that the (historical) data is lacking in some respects (e.g. measuring location had to be moved due to rising water levels, or urbanisation coming too close to avoid interference, or no prior measuring point available but now a new point has been made available for improved coverage and data quality going forward). Sometimes a new method of data collection is replacing a less accurate method. So there is no longer an exact 1:1 relationship between historical measuring locations and new measuring locations in the same area. That's all.
That's all?? Of no great consequence?? Crikey! ;D
Isn't it obvious that any certainty about the catastrophic effects of increased CO2 levels has to be based on very accurate records from the past and the present. If such accurate records don't exist, for whatever reason, then certainty cannot exist, from a scientific perspective.
Of course, certainty can always exist from a purely emotional perspective, as in a religious belief, but we're talking about science here, aren't we?
-
It is because I say it is.
-
How on earth can you determine that the models are accurate without waiting for the projected results to happen?
By using past observations. If the model doesn't fit the historical observations, it's not a good model.
Really Ray, you actually managed to disappoint me by not getting that simple fact, and the expectations were already modest.
Obviously (?), future (more) controlled measurements, and peer review, will be used to fine-tune the initial hypothesis, and new measurements will be used to verify whether the actual observations agree with the modeled expectations, and to hone in on the relative weightings of the variables/inputs. But even if a mismatch with later observations is detected, one still needs past/historical data to make sure that adjustments to the models don't break the accuracy of the model for that historical data.
It's easy enough to come up with a new calculation that better fits the more recent data, but that potentially carries the risk of 'overfitting' the model if it doesn't work on the historical data anymore. The historical data is also the foundation from which the model parameters are derived, with a method called Principle Component Analysis (PCA).
To recap, models are based on prior observations, and then refined over time as new and possibly more accurate data becomes available.
This principle is fundamental to the scientific methodology. One creates a hypothesis based upon the available evidence.
Exactly. Historical records are the basis of a model. Waiting for future events to happen only creates better hindsight.
One sets up experiments under controlled conditions, and models to predict what will happen with a change of one or more variables, then one not only has to wait the appropriate period of time to see if the models' predictions are correct, but one has to have the capacity to observe the results.
Wrong, which explains your confusion. One doesn't model to predict. Instead, the new observations have to fit the model that was already made. The better the quality of the historical data (= Confidence level) upon which the model was created, the better the future fit for new data should be, which will be verified when that future arrives. If necessary, the model will be fine-tuned, as they usually are, and sometimes one even detects that the collection of new data is creating drift or inaccuracy itself, versus the model.
A recent example is the measurement of surface temperatures from satellites, which contradicted the model that was based on more sparse actual surface measurements. The satellites showed temperatures that increased less than the model suggested they would. It turned out to be caused by the satellites gradually measuring at a later time during the afternoon, when, duh, the temperatures were lower than measurements taken at an earlier moment of the day would have shown. After correction for that time of measurement, the model proved to be even more accurate ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
By using past observations. If the model doesn't fit the historical observations, it's not a good model..l
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bart!
My whole life I’ve been trying to find the secret to investing and getting rich. I tried various investment models, in vain. Turns out, as you rightly stated, all it takes is that the model fits the past. Off I go to become a billioner investor. Along the way, I’ll discard the disclaimer on every investment prospesctus, you know, that stupid warning, how “past results do not guarantee future returns.”
-
Speaking about investments:
Bitcoin Mining Now Consuming More Electricity Than 159 Countries. Estimated global mining costs: $1.5 billion USD.
https://powercompare.co.uk/bitcoin/
-
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bart!
You're welcome, Slobodan.
My whole life I’ve been trying to find the secret to investing and getting rich. I tried various investment models, in vain. Turns out, as you rightly stated, all it takes is that the model fits the past. Off I go to become a billioner investor. Along the way, I’ll discard the disclaimer on every investment prospesctus, you know, that stupid warning, how “past results do not guarantee future returns.”
Let me help you a bit with that one as well. It's called Psychology, not Economy.
Current stock prices are only partly based on historical data, but mostly on managed expectations of future events. The more your expectations are managed by people/ organizations/data that you do not have access to, the lower the prospect of you benefitting from it (unlike those who were managing your expectations).
Before the financial crisis of 2008, I used to manage my own stock portfolio, and made between 25% and 34% annual profits (in cash, because I day-traded (because human psychology/impulses changes behavior so rapidly). I remember that the moment I saw the World-Trade center tragedy unfolding in 2001, the moment that I saw the second plane hitting the towers, I cashed in my full stock portfolio. I repurchased some of that stock at the moment it seemed to have reached it's lowest point, because (since people tend to over-react), it was likely to bounce back a bit (and I was ready to sell again when that had happened). Some clever modeling on prior data made that timing easier.
So my model based on historical observations worked. Then as a new reality emerged, I fine-tuned my hypothesis which still worked (because people fall into the same traps all the time). So when things started disintegrating in 2007/2008, I again sold my entire stock portfolio, and thus again missed the dive to new lows. I've not been directly investing in stock since then, because the system became even more rigged than before (by expectations managers who saw an opportunity to benefit from other's trying to recover from their losses), and it became more of a gamble than it made sense to me to risk losing it.
But, except for the role of psychology, we're drifting off topic, so I'll leave it at that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Speaking about investments:
Bitcoin Mining Now Consuming More Electricity Than 159 Countries. Estimated global mining costs: $1.5 billion USD.
https://powercompare.co.uk/bitcoin/
Yes, yet another hype that's also costing most others more (in pollution) than those who have designed it to benefit from it (financially) in the short term.
It's psychology unleashed. A form of FOMO (fear of missing out) in practice.
And, BTW, there is a model as well that suggests (with Low Confidence, due to missing data, but with High Likelihood, due to the maximum of mineable coins) when the hype will plateau.
Cheers,
Bart
-
By using past observations. If the model doesn't fit the historical observations, it's not a good model.
Really Ray, you actually managed to disappoint me by not getting that simple fact, and the expectations were already modest.
Excellent! You have now admitted (perhaps unwittingly ;D ) that climate models are deeply flawed because we don't have a sufficient quantity and quality of historical observations on which to base the models. We're not even sure if major events such as hurricanes and floods have been increasing during the past 50 years, on a global scale.
Wrong, which explains your confusion. One doesn't model to predict.
Really! I didn't know that. Please explain how the predicted harmful effects of rising CO2 levels are made without the use of models. I'm all ears. I hope you are not trying to wriggle out by trying to make a distinction between 'prediction' and 'projection'. ;)
Instead, the new observations have to fit the model that was already made. The better the quality of the historical data (= Confidence level) upon which the model was created, the better the future fit for new data should be, which will be verified when that future arrives.
Well done! The model has to be verified when the future arrives, and verified continuously and consistently, numerous times, over a long period of perhaps 100 years in the case of climate. That's a necessary part of the scientific methodology. Even then, a climate model which has appeared to be successful for many decades, might begin to produce inaccurate projections because of some influence or forcings which the scientists were not aware of, or had not taken into consideration.
I'm glad we are now in agreement that climate models are difficult to verify and are basically beyond the methods of falsification because of the long time periods involved. ;)
-
Excellent! You have now admitted (perhaps unwittingly ;D ) that climate models are deeply flawed because we don't have a sufficient quantity and quality of historical observations on which to base the models.
It saddens me that a (deliberate?) lack of reading comprehension must be added to your set of skills.
Well done! The model has to be verified when the future arrives, and verified continuously and consistently, numerous times, over a long period of perhaps 100 years in the case of climate.
Wrong. Data has to be validated, and then compared to the model to see if it fits in the confidence range. If it does, then the confidence range becomes smaller, and the Likelihood of the model being able to forecast reliably increases. But I'm getting the feeling that it's falling on deaf ears, so I'll pass at explaining yet again.
Of course, the new data may lead to fine-tuning of a model, or to a reexamination of the data collection methods, or both.
That's a necessary part of the scientific methodology.
A part of the method, maybe, but it is foolish to not act upon current knowledge because we may (or may not) gain better knowledge/insight in the future. The postponement may lead to passing irreversible triggerpoints in the mean time, a fools attitude when we only have 1 home planet to experiment with.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ray, you just don't get it, but Bart made it clear. This has nothing to do with data or with algorithms or projections. It has to do with faith. You're either a believer or an unbeliever (known to this religion as a "denier"). No amount of argument will change the faith of a believer like Bart. No obvious hole in the believer's arguments will be seen as a hole by the believer. We have millennia of evidence about this kind of devotion to religious dogma. Be careful. If you give true believers the equivalent of the idea that the earth rotates around the sun, you're liable to end up like Galileo.
-
Here were the projected tracking models for Hurricane Sandy before it hit land. Computer models had hundreds of past hurricanes to develop their algorithms. Yet, it's obvious, that everyone was still guessing. How can we so sure about climate models when we have so few observations of past behavior from our current conditions? I think that's the point Ray was making.
Article extract, first paragraph: "BOSTON (CBS) – Our midday suite of weather models has made a dramatic shift in the ultimate track of Sandy, which officially became a hurricane late Wednesday morning. Nearly all now pull Sandy back westward, towards the East Coast early next week. Only a very few still kick Sandy out to sea. This is an important development, but still, this far out in time and does not signify anything definite."
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/10/24/hurricane-sandy-new-england-likely-to-feel-some-effects/
(https://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/spaghetti.jpg)
-
Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.
-
Here were the projected tracking models for Hurricane Sandy before it hit land.
Climate Change is not Weather, but extreme weather (droughts and precipitation in different places) is made worse by Global Warming (or Cooling as some of the posters in this thread prefer to believe).
How can we so sure about climate models when we have so few observations of past behavior from our current conditions? I think that's the point Ray was making.
Climate Change is not Weather, how hard can it be to grasp ...
Since reason apparently has little to do with the denial, given all the evidence, it must be psychology. Cognitive dissonance, trading short term reward for longer term suffering (= Bad trade-off).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.
Actually, in 1991 already, oil companies like Shell already told what would happen, and that was which are now becoming facts (not that those have made an impression on 'Deniers', sorry no better term for it). Not that those companies are in the crystal ball business, but maybe that makes them even better qualified ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ray, you just don't get it, but Bart made it clear. This has nothing to do with data or with algorithms or projections. It has to do with faith. You're either a believer or an unbeliever (known to this religion as a "denier"). No amount of argument will change the faith of a believer like Bart. No obvious hole in the believer's arguments will be seen as a hole by the believer. We have millennia of evidence about this kind of devotion to religious dogma. Be careful. If you give true believers the equivalent of the idea that the earth rotates around the sun, you're liable to end up like Galileo.
Russ,
I think I do get it. I'm partly, but not only, interested in the ways that climate alarmists try to wriggle out of the obvious situation of uncertainty about the possible negative effects of rising CO2 levels. It'll be interesting to see how they wriggle and squirm even more, should the climate begin a cooling trend in the next few years. ;D
On the other hand, I do have some compassion for those scientists whose reputations might be shattered as a result of the wrong advice given to governments.
The following paper discusses the uncertainties about the causes and the extent of changes to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, and argues for better quality control.
https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/larcombe-and-ridd-2018.pdf
"The connections between science and policy are complex. Although science forms only one of the wide range of inputs to policy-making (e.g. Fig. 1), a policy is likely to be worse if the science is itself less than credible and defensible. Scientists play the key role of ensuring that this input is objective and of the highest quality, so that policy-makers and politicians alike can be best informed of the scope and strength of the knowledge and also, importantly, of the key uncertainties."
"Perhaps the most high-profile example of systemic failure comes from the biomedical sciences, where checks made on peer-reviewed science indicate that a large number of important papers are found to be wrong. Prinz et al. (2011) of the German drug company Bayer, writing in the journal ‘Nature Reviews Drug Discovery’ claimed that 75% of the literature used for potential drug discovery targets is unreliable."
“A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year, researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. (The Economist, 19/10/2013)"
"The natural variability of the entire Great Barrier Reef system, coupled with the vast extent of the relevant components, which include river catchments through to the continental slope, means that scientists are forced to use indirect measures of the system (e.g. Laurance et al., 2011), or to perform analysis of datasets where complex statistical techniques are used to try and discern a weak signal from the background noise. Inevitably, this can leave considerable scope for misinterpretation of the data, and, we believe, risk an unwarranted level of significance being ascribed to the work."
"Duarte et al. (2015) noted:
“the marine research community may not have remained sufficiently skeptical in sending and receiving information on the problems caused by human pressures in the ocean” “that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas, which has allowed opinion, beliefs, and tenacious adherence to particular theories to play a major role in holding beliefs based on interpretations unsupported by evidence”.
"(Loehle, 1987)
-doom and gloom media accounts shows some—at times, severe—disconnect with actual observations.”
-
The thing I find most interesting about this thread as a part time amateur psychologist is that some people "think" that they can over-turn science and reality with the force of their opinion on a photographic centric web site.
Anyone for Hubris?
-
Any one for Hubris?
The market is in massive oversupply - not worth anything :-)
-
Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.
Hey, it's a great method; comes close second to birthdays!
Rob
-
Anyone for Hubris?
Not only is hubris a part of the problem, in thinking that we can control our climate simply by reducing minuscule amounts of CO2 and methane emissions, but it seems quite clear there is a degree of scientific fraud involved in the AGW scare.
I've just come across the following article on the Michael Mann court case, published today.
https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-hockey-stick-mann-be-prosecuted-for-climate-fraud/
"No scientist has abused the court system like Michael Mann. Penn State’s controversial alarmist climate professor has not only politicized the science but has resorted to repeated court action to silence his critics.
Mann’s most shocking legal gambit was stooping to sue for libel 79-year-old retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball. Ball, although a pensioner, remains a staunch and popular critic of climate alarm. For almost two decades Ball has been in the vanguard of independent scientists calling out Mann’s secret science; science bought and paid for with our tax dollars.
When asked to show his disputed code Mann’s response was:
“I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…”
So much for saving the planet from catastrophe, Mikey!
In the seven years this ridiculous, multi-million dollar SLAPP suit has run Mann has stooped to every trick to prevent open court examination of crucial equations that created his iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph. While Mann is personally wealthy and extremely well funded behind the scenes by deep-pocketed Big Green fanatic, David Suzuki, Dr Ball has relied on global grassroots backing from ordinary men and women sick of government corruption."
-
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Bart!
My whole life I’ve been trying to find the secret to investing and getting rich. I tried various investment models, in vain. Turns out, as you rightly stated, all it takes is that the model fits the past. Off I go to become a billioner investor. Along the way, I’ll discard the disclaimer on every investment prospesctus, you know, that stupid warning, how “past results do not guarantee future returns.”
but a copy of Benjamin Graham's 'The Intelligent Investor' it's the best 'simple' book. You can then move up to Graham and Dodd's 'Security Analysis' which goes over thing in major depth. You could also just buy some Berkshire Hathaway stock. The great thing about the latter choice is you b can attend the annual meeting!!!
-
... as a part time amateur psychologist...
And a full-time new-religion fanatic? 😉
-
The thing I find most interesting about this thread as a part time amateur psychologist is that some people "think" that they can over-turn science and reality with the force of their opinion on a photographic centric web site.
Anyone for Hubris?
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
-
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
Yes it certainly is frustrating! Let me try to n use some examples from my own field that might help clarify things for Ray and the others. I spent my career on the pharmaceutical industry, primarily in regulatory affairs. Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are always approve with imperfect data. If we waited for 100% knowledge of efficacy and safety it b would be years before a product was approved. We make assumptions using statistical models as to how to structure the clinical trial. This leads to proof that the drug worked for its intended purpose and SOME side effects. The trial does not provide information on all the drugs uses, that only comes with wide spread use (most trial population sizes are 5000 patients).
Safety is a critical factor depending on the use of v the drug or vaccine. We do not want products given to healthy children to pose significant risk. Say you have a rare side effect of 1 in 10,000. To have a reliable chance of seeing this in a trial means that 30,000 patients need to be studied. Most vaccine trials are of b this size or larger. In addition, safety is monitored for as long as the drug is on the market and new updates or warnings are routine.
Climate science is no different in terms of approach. Data is constantly coming in and models refined. This is the point Bart and I have been trying to make on several threads now.
-
Data is constantly coming in and models refined.
Like the "refinement" of the "hockey stick," which turned out to be the horse-hockey stick? That's refinement all right. Good point, Alan.
-
Not only is hubris a part of the problem, in thinking that we can control our climate simply by reducing minuscule amounts of CO2 and methane emissions, but it seems quite clear there is a degree of scientific fraud involved in the AGW scare.
Ah, that sums up your position nicely.
Minuscule amounts of CO2:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/
" In a pre-industrialized society, the causes of carbon dioxide emissions consisted of non-energy related sources like rocks, animals (including humans) and geological hot spots such as volcanoes and geysers. In 1751, the first year where data is available, some 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide was produced worldwide. In the 1960s, the level of CO2 was around 1,000 times higher than in 1751. In 2015, some 36.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide was emitted globally."
Scientific Fraude:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.
Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
Ball has worked with Friends of Science and Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which opposes the consensus scientific opinion of significant anthropogenic global warming,[6] and is a former research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Ball also rejects the consensus scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that raises global temperature."
Because the IR absorption (Greenhouse effect) characteristics of CO2 have been known since something like the mid 19th century, it must be that he denies that it raises global temperatures. But who knows, maybe he also denies it is a gas with greenhouse properties.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes it certainly is frustrating! Let me try to n use some examples from my own field that might help clarify things for Ray and the others. I spent my career on the pharmaceutical industry, primarily in regulatory affairs. Pharmaceuticals and vaccines are always approve with imperfect data. If we waited for 100% knowledge of efficacy and safety it b would be years before a product was approved. We make assumptions using statistical models as to how to structure the clinical trial. This leads to proof that the drug worked for its intended purpose and SOME side effects. The trial does not provide information on all the drugs uses, that only comes with wide spread use (most trial population sizes are 5000 patients).
Safety is a critical factor depending on the use of v the drug or vaccine. We do not want products given to healthy children to pose significant risk. Say you have a rare side effect of 1 in 10,000. To have a reliable chance of seeing this in a trial means that 30,000 patients need to be studied. Most vaccine trials are of b this size or larger. In addition, safety is monitored for as long as the drug is on the market and new updates or warnings are routine.
Climate science is no different in terms of approach. Data is constantly coming in and models refined. This is the point Bart and I have been trying to make on several threads now.
Data is coming in, but the time frame for proving climate projections are decades unlike medical trials. Plus, if the medical trials made an error, you'll know pretty quickly once the drug is released for use. It's not the same for climate.
-
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
I'd say there are more suckers here than idiots.
-
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
Thanks for your sympathy, but I find it educational for myself (and who knows for some other readers), to debunk Fake news (a modern day menace to society).
I've learned a lot of new things myself over the years, and I generally think that already having done some of the research (a.o. for my local Air Quality Measuring activities, a Citizen Science project), it might also be beneficial for others when I share some of that info, be it on Photography topics or other topics that affect our lives or even health.
And also don't worry, I do not suffer from the illusion that I can convince a denier to change his/her views, on the contrary. I do hope that the information may be helpful for all others, thank goodness the majority (although often less vocal).
Cheers,
Bart
-
All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.
-
All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.
I tend to agree, but it is a bit of an insult for idiots. An idiot can't help himself, a Denier chooses to act that way ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The heat/light ratio of this thread is deteriorating, and the ad hominem element is creeping back in. I don't wish to censor discussion, despite the urge, nay command, from some (one), but I may be forced into it.
Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.
Jeremy
-
Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.
Absolutely agree. Serious fun.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What companies like Shell knew, back in the '80 ...
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/05/17/shell-knew-charting-thirty-years-corporate-climate-denialism
Cheers,
Bart
-
The heat/light ratio of this thread is deteriorating, and the ad hominem element is creeping back in. I don't wish to censor discussion, despite the urge, nay command, from some (one), but I may be forced into it.
Let's return to repeatedly stating our respective positions: it might not illuminate much, still less convert, but it entertains.
Jeremy
I think I already said this would happen back on the first page of this thread,. ;)
-
Predicting climate change based on past data is like predicting winning lotto numbers based on those winning in the past.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
--Nils Bohr, Nobel laureate in Physics
-
I think I already said this would happen back on the first page of this thread,. ;)
I know it's what you like to think, Alan, but as I pointed out the last time you made that smugly self-satisfied assertion, it isn't true. The thread continues, on its 20th page now and for the most part in decent humour, needing only minor nudges from me to keep it on track.
Perhaps the failure of the thread you moderated wasn't entirely the fault of the contributors.
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, I have long abandoned faith in absolutes. One only has to consider the fate of what used to be clearly understood as defining the concept of street photography to realise that.
:-(
-
Alain,
Regarding my idiot comment - I shouldn't have said that. That day was also the day of another school shooting which as a teacher I find a bit sad. My point is that many politicians do not understand the nature of science. They will use it when they get cancer, but when it comes to something like Global Climate Change they switch to religion! This is not science. I don't see how Bart has the patience for this.
-
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
Calling people idiots, and using other forms of insults, is a form of 'psychological projection' whereby people defend themselves against an unconscious hint or impulse that they themselves have the same qualities that they are attributing to others.
By attributing those faults to others, they are more easily able to deny the existence of those same faults in themselves. This is a well-known psychological phenomena.
The following Wikipedia article provides an overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
-
Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883. Hmmmm something is going on.
-
All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.
Les,
There are lots of toxic waste products from industrial processes which are clearly pollutants, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, asbestos, benzene, sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon in the atmosphere (smog), numerous pesticides used for agriculture, and so on, and so on.
However, I find very absurd and unscientific to describe CO2 as a pollutant when we know with certainty that CO2 is essential for all life and that increases in CO2 result in greater plant growth.
In connection with this issue, I just came across the following article, in relation to the waste problem of solar systems.
"Dubbed as a clean source of energy, new research findings are showing that home and property owners producing clean, CO2-electricity may, in fact, find themselves sitting on a pile of hazardous waste once the module lifetime expires. In many countries, it is illegal to simply discard hazardous materials into the household garbage, and so many solar energy module operators may find themselves paying high fees for hazardous waste disposal, while in third world countries the hazardous modules will simply end up being discarded onto the landscape.
The researchers say that currently there are about 3700 square kilometers of solar modules installed globally and estimate that as of 2016 the modules contained 11,000 tons of lead and 800 tons of cadmium, reports Welt, citing the study."
https://principia-scientific.org/new-study-solar-panel-owners-sit-on-a-pile-of-toxic-lead-cadmium/
-
Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883. Hmmmm something is going on.
Yep! Not enough carbon dioxide floating about, and you need more cows to chew more cud to make more chlorine, too! I do my bit by feeding Moira carrots, but there's a limit to what one bloke and somebody else's horse can do.
On the other hand, it's long been known that the dinosaurs brought about their own extinction by eating too much and having shocking table manners, so shocking that they altered the climate and attracted meteors. The few surviving dinos always denied responsibility, so there's an object lesson there.
-
Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883. Hmmmm something is going on.
Of course something is going on. Nothing is static. Climate is changing all the time, as everything else is changing, as you are changing as you get older.
We are currently in a slight warming period in relation to a previous colder period, know as the Little Ice Age.
Climate changes in big cycles, known as Ice Ages, and smaller cycles within those inter-glacial periods. Jesus Christ lived during a warm period, similar to today. The Dark Ages, prior to the Middle Ages, were miserably cold. The Middle Ages became warm again, enticing the Vikings to emigrate to Greenland, but that warmth lasted just a few hundred years, and was followed by the Little Ice Age.
We are now in another warm period, similar to the warmth during the life of Jesus Christ. We should rejoice. ;D
-
I know it's what you like to think, Alan, but as I pointed out the last time you made that smugly self-satisfied assertion, it isn't true. The thread continues, on its 20th page now and for the most part in decent humour, needing only minor nudges from me to keep it on track.
Perhaps the failure of the thread you moderated wasn't entirely the fault of the contributors.
Jeremy
With all due respect you have totally missed the point of my comment. IIRC, you said you hadn't even looked at the previous thread. I predicted that the same thing would happen on this one as did before. Your cheeky final comment was uncalled for since you seem to have no clue about what we tried to do on the earlier thread. I guess you can sanction me if you want, it really doesn't matter as the history of this topic will continue to repeat itself regardless of any new title.
-
Michael Soule On Vanishing Wildeness
It’s human nature to be concerned mostly with short-term threats. We don’t change our behavior to avoid future disasters. Instead we wait around for something to force us to change.
Conservative politicians are in the business of denying that anything bad is happening, and just about all politicians want to avoid controversy. In the most recent presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both avoided talking about environmental issues.
Maybe we can’t change, even though the day of reckoning approaches. In western Colorado we’re at the edge of the Southwest, a very dry place. Climatologists say that water-stressed regions will be altered dramatically. Drought will become the norm. What little water remains will be the most valuable resource. In some parts of the world it already is. Most people who study climate change agree that droughts, rising seas, forest fires, and hurricanes will exert such overwhelming stress on daily life that even politicians will be concerned. By then it will be too late for a lot of species and a lot of places and a lot of human communities.
it’s not only time that’s hard for us to grasp but space. We have evolved to comprehend issues at the scale of a watershed or mountain range. Thinking about anything “global” presents a serious cognitive challenge. Few fields in science deal with these widespread, long-term issues. People in politics and business and the media don’t look at these phenomena. Our life spans are so short that we just can’t deal psychologically with long-term changes in the environment. We’re not equipped.
https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/508/we-only-protect-what-we-love
-
The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.
Apparently, there is one particular idiot who, from post to post, from thread to thread, keeps insulting everyone he disagrees with or doesn’t like. Thinly-veiled personal insults, without mentioning names, just so he can avoid being outright banned.
-
Apparently, there is one particular idiot who, from post to post, from thread to thread, keeps insulting everyone he disagrees with or doesn’t like. Thinly-veiled personal insults, without mentioning names, just so he can avoid being outright banned.
Hi Slobodan,
Maybe you'll find this as interesting as I do, since we both have backgrounds in Finance:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/11/zirp-interest-rate-federal-policy-funded-fracking-industry-loss
Others may find this financially oriented information less interesting, even though it (fossil fuel, and soil pollution) is very relevant for the topics under discussion in this thread.
Disclaimer, 'Desmog' sources to credible scientific information, and the DeSmogBlog site is labeled (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/desmog/) as having a 'Left'-leaning bias in reporting (based on its political stance regarding climate change), but also has a rating of Factual Reporting: High (see attached).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Slobodan,
Maybe you'll find this as interesting as I do, since we both have backgrounds in Finance:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/11/zirp-interest-rate-federal-policy-funded-fracking-industry-loss
Others may find this financially oriented information less interesting, even though it (fossil fuel, and soil pollution) is very relevant for the topics under discussion in this thread.
Disclaimer, 'Desmog' sources to credible scientific information, and the DeSmogBlog site is labeled (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/desmog/) as having a 'Left'-leaning bias in reporting (based on its political stance regarding climate change), but also has a rating of Factual Reporting: High (see attached).
Cheers,
Bart
I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased". If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid. What's the point? How does a reader understand what the Truth really is?
It's like listening to a used car salesmen extol the features of the car he's trying to sell you but not telling you the engine is burning oil. Would you buy a car from that guy?
-
I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased". If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side...
Alternative-fact deniers? ;)
-
Alternative-fact deniers? ;)
Assuming you are referring to that website in general, No, that would be that PSI site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/) that Climate change deniers use (see attached). ;)
Deniers are easily spotted by them saying things like "Climate always changes", conveniently hiding the fact that the change that is going on in the last decades is changing at a rate that is unprecedented in recent history, and it's objectively caused by man (so say even the reports by the US government (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/)).
Here's the Official Government Site:
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ (https://science2017.globalchange.gov/)
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased". If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid. What's the point? How does a reader understand what the Truth really is?
It's like listening to a used car salesmen extol the features of the car he's trying to sell you but not telling you the engine is burning oil. Would you buy a car from that guy?
Caveat emptor.
I bought one used car in my life, just to leave in the UK for our use during our return trips from here. It was one year old when I bought it, and our son used to drive it when we weren't there. I would never buy used again. I would rather buy the cheapest new around within my means, but have it covered by a maker's guarantee for a few years, dodgy as those guarantees may be.
In the end, as my son was living city-centre and was young, the insurance became absurd, so we just told him to use the bus and sold it back where we'd bought it (the car, not the bus). One of the delights of city life was that I discovered shoe prints on the roof. A positive outcome was that it prompted us to start to drive to Scotland instead, and that turned into some of the best adventures of my life. My life; I suspect my wife worried a bit more about where we were going to sleep at night as I did tend to drive long hours. However, we always did fine nice hotels and good dinners! You can't beat France for so many, unexpected delights.
-
Assuming you are referring to that website in general, No, that would be that PSI site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/) that Climate change deniers use (see attached). ;)
Deniers are easily spotted by them saying things like "Climate always changes", conveniently hiding the fact that the change that is going on in the last decades is changing at a rate that is unprecedented in recent history, and it's objectively caused by man (so say even the reports by the US government (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climate-report-climate-change-is-real-and-our-fault/)).
Here's the Official Government Site:
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/ (https://science2017.globalchange.gov/)
Cheers,
Bart
Just like deniers slant their reporting, supporters slant theirs as well. The report you refer to if you read the executive summary shows no advantages to a warming climate when we know that species including plant life will increase due to the higher temperatures and more rainfall. The report only reports the negative facts and conveniently never reports on the positive facts. It's biased reporting truthful facts but only truthful facts on one side.
But we need to have complete information both positives and negatives so we could intelligently figure out what we should be doing. As long as one or both sides continue to slant the news and cherry pick the points of views the opposite sides will continue to claim that their adversaries are not correct in any way at all.
-
I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased". If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid. What's the point? How does a reader understand what the Truth really is?
This is why one needs to constantly read up on the issues of the day. Obviously not everyone can be well schooled in atmospheric science (I had a single semester course in atmospheric chemistry as an under grad a lot of years ago but still read general science journals on these topics). The key is to be able to put things in an appropriate context. Often times modeling is complex such as in climate change and yes v there will be uncertainty. Scientists studying this are doing the best they can and increasing data will lead to improved prediction.
Ultimately there will have to be some political decisions made. It 'may' be that the longer decisions are put off the more difficult the transition will be. Certainly moving to a carbon tax (as well as increasing the current gasoline tax in the U.S. which is used to pay for road and bridge maintenance) will provide economic nudging to effect some changes. I believe this is better than the current CAFE standards.
-
This is why one needs to constantly read up on the issues of the day. Obviously not everyone can be well schooled in atmospheric science (I had a single semester course in atmospheric chemistry as an under grad a lot of years ago but still read general science journals on these topics). The key is to be able to put things in an appropriate context. Often times modeling is complex such as in climate change and yes v there will be uncertainty. Scientists studying this are doing the best they can and increasing data will lead to improved prediction.
Ultimately there will have to be some political decisions made. It 'may' be that the longer decisions are put off the more difficult the transition will be. Certainly moving to a carbon tax (as well as increasing the current gasoline tax in the U.S. which is used to pay for road and bridge maintenance) will provide economic nudging to effect some changes. I believe this is better than the current CAFE standards.
Since a lot of the info we get is biased, or just plain wrong, discernment, instinct, and just plain common sense are often more important then what we read or hear or even learn in school. Professors have biases too. Also, we're easily swayed by our own prejudices. We read and listen to what confirms our opinions. Independent thinkers are a rarity. Most people are like cattle following the herd hoping there's water over the hill.
-
Since a lot of the info we get is biased, or just plain wrong, discernment, instinct, and just plain common sense are often more important then what we read or hear or even learn in school. Professors have biases too. Also, we're easily swayed by our own prejudices. We read and listen to what confirms our opinions. Independent thinkers are a rarity. Most people are like cattle following the herd hoping there's water over the hill.
Or that all the pollution will affect only the people on the other side of the hill.
-
Right, Alan. But what Goldhammer means is (1) we don't yet know exactly what problem we want to solve, so we have no way to build algorithms that actually can solve it, and (2) since we don't know the objective, we don't really know what kind of "data" to gather and feed into our nonexistent algorithms. But he's right about the political part. We want to control what people do. Raise their gas prices, etc. Because WE know what's right, and they don't.
-
Or that all the pollution will affect only the people on the other side of the hill.
There's cattle on both sides of the climate change question. It's hard to find honest pro and con appraisals of the situation. Each side is posturing and cherry picking. That's a hell of a way to make public policy.
-
There's cattle on both sides of the climate change question. It's hard to find honest pro and con appraisals of the situation. Each side is posturing and cherry picking. That's a hell of a way to make public policy.
That's always been the way to make political policy; if you don't, you end up with everybody admitting to thinking the same, and then how do you decide who gets the plumb? Can't let reality spoil a good pitch!
-
Interesting that both Russ and Alan Klein totally mis-read what I wrote. What one cannot ignore is the laws of physics and chemistry along with the accumulating data that demonstrably shows climate change is going on. There was a huge storm that blew ashore in Oman and up into Saudi Arabia the other day dropping record amounts of rain. Just another example of weird stuff happening.
I also don't accept Alan Klein's comment about bias. Scientists look at data and the process of constantly correcting based on new information. If b you don't accept the scientific method then you better have adv alternative ready.
-
Interesting that both Russ and Alan Klein totally mis-read what I wrote. What one cannot ignore is the laws of physics and chemistry along with the accumulating data that demonstrably shows climate change is going on. There was a huge storm that blew ashore in Oman and up into Saudi Arabia the other day dropping record amounts of rain. Just another example of weird stuff happening.
I also don't accept Alan Klein's comment about bias. Scientists look at data and the process of constantly correcting based on new information. If b you don't accept the scientific method then you better have adv alternative ready.
Unfortunately, climate research scientists and producers making nature films for TV for the most part can't get funding unless they're on-board with global warming and man's negative effects on animals. So most of the work is about the "bad" effects of warming, pollution and man "destroying" nature. It's become almost a "cultural" thing. Every nature program you watch drops comments about how bad "man" is destroying the environment and so forth. It's become a badge of honor to be against your own species.
So the bias may not be in any one study. Rather, it's the accumulation of studies that present a one-side viewpoint. There's hardly any studies on the other side because the powers that be are not interested in presenting any benefits of warming. And if there are studies showing the benefits, they're buried on page 47 of the newspaper or not published at all.
-
... Scientists look at data...
I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields. Even the term “scientists” is increadibly nonchalant, as it lumps everyone into one single, uber-human category.
So, let’s try this exercise: let’s replace the word “scientists” with “doctors.”
Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”
See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.
-
Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”
Sounds fair enough to me. True too of lawyers, of course; and doubly so of those who are both ;)
Jeremy
-
I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields.
Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”
See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.
I don't think that I ever equated science with religion. As one whose undergraduate and graduate degrees are in chemistry and an also an atheist, I think you are trying to confound what goes on in scientific research. It is inherently self correcting. I have also known three scientists who were caught publishing fraudulent papers. One was even a co-author with me on a review chapter in a well known book series. He tried to sneak in some unpublished data that was later found to be fraudulent and in refused to let it be included in a review chapter that focused on the published literature. I think I have some credibility here. You cannot indict the entire system because of a small number bad actors. (The same thing is applicable to photography where we know certain images are either falsely claimed or have been manipulated.
Alan Klein's comments about 'documentary' shows also misses the point. While they may rely on data, they also represent the perspective of the documentarian and may or may not be biased. It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.
-
I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields. Even the term “scientists” is increadibly nonchalant, as it lumps everyone into one single, uber-human category.
So, let’s try this exercise: let’s replace the word “scientists” with “doctors.”
Here it goes: “Doctors are phenomenal God’s creatures, infallible, perfectly trained, perfectly educated, absolutely ethical, never cheating, making mistakes, defrauding, etc.”
See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.
That's why I don't believe in any religion, but firmly believe in a God as a form of overarching authority/grand-planner/whatever you prefer to use to describe something we have, since man appeared, felt to exist within our own souls and heads. I'm told there are no atheists in a falling aircraft, but that's a hard one to prove, although the sentiment is not difficult to grasp; well, I would have thought that until a day or two ago when I realised that a lot of simple things turns out to be difficult to grasp...
;-)
-
It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.
Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.
Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
Alan Klein's comments about 'documentary' shows also misses the point. While they may rely on data, they also represent the perspective of the documentarian and may or may not be biased. It is far more difficult to exhibit bias in peer reviewed published research as anyone who has published or reviewed papers.
No one reads scientific journals and research papers except other scientists and researchers. The popular press through newspapers, magazines, and TV documentaries are what most people get their news and beliefs formed.
Bad news sells. Everyone wants to read about the dog that bit someone or better than that the story of the person who bit the dog. Everyone want to see the lumber companies chopping down the forest laying it bare rather than the part where they re-plant for future growth and subsequent harvesting or how that wood is used to make homes for people to shelter in safely rather than live bare in the cold. Documentarians follow the money. So all we get is a Pablum of negative bias about man. If Tolstoy called his book, "Peace and War", it would have flopped.
-
Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.
Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.
Cheers,
Bart
That is the statement of the week!
Go outwith this thread into photography, and it only gets worse.
;-)
-
Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative.
Not all that worrisome if it's just by individuals who are free to chase their own delusions, but very worrisome if governments adhere to fact-free 'truths' to make policy that will negatively affect lots of people. Also worrisome if the sheeple blindly support such governments, instead of calling them and/or their financial backers to order. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply.
Cheers,
Bart
It's the people who blindly follow so-called scientific theories that are the sheeple. It's harder to go against a trend and be an independent thinker and have abuse dumped on you. It's easier to quote some journal to prove how smart you are to other people.
-
Indeed, and that makes it worrisome that some people prefer to reject the peer-reviewed, finally published, and frequently cited objective and independently repeatable observations, and only offer conspiracy theories as an alternative...
No, the alternative is real life, not your religion.
Since you keep posting those verses from your bible, I have to keep reposting rebuttals:
This blind belief in the truthfulness of academic research is outright scary. As I said many times, science is the new religion for some.
How many studies that took years to research, were peer-reviewed, and published in respectable publications, were found to be faulty and debunked either contemporaneously or a bit later?...
Further to the above, an eye-opener article about "research" (emphasis mine):
https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-based-medicine-killing-for-profit-41f2812b8704
The 2 most prestigious journals of medicine in the world are The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet said this in 2015
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue”
Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of NEJM wrote in 2009 that,
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor”
So here’s a damning list of all the problems of EBM:
Selective Publication
Rigged outcomes
Advertorials
Reprint Revenues
Bribery of Journal Editors
Publication Bias
Financial Conflicts of Interests
-
So the bias may not be in any one study. Rather, it's the accumulation of studies that present a one-side viewpoint.
Alan, these studies don't do "viewpoints". They collect evidence that cumulates to either support or refute facts.
Evidence, the 3 year amount of rain that fell in 1 day in Oman supports the hypothesis that the amounts of extreme precipitation will increase due to the larger capacity of warmer air to hold moisture.
Evidence, last night was the warmest recorded in May in my Country since the beginning of systematic recording in 1901.
There's hardly any studies on the other side because the powers that be are not interested in presenting any benefits of warming.
Is that an assumption based on 'feelings', or do you have research that shows this? There's of course also the possibility that there are not that many 'benefits' that outweigh the negative consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That is the statement of the week!
Go outwith this thread into photography, and it only gets worse.
;-)
Ah, but then we can call it Art ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan, these studies don't do "viewpoints". They collect evidence that cumulates to either support or refute facts.
Evidence, the 3 year amount of rain that fell in 1 day in Oman supports the hypothesis that the amounts of extreme precipitation will increase due to the larger capacity of warmer air to hold moisture.
Evidence, last night was the warmest recorded in May in my Country since the beginning of systematic recording in 1901.
Is that an assumption based on 'feelings', or do you have research that shows this? There's of course also the possibility that there are not that many 'benefits' that outweigh the negative consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm curious about Oman. Did all that rain help grow vegetation? Were there any positive results of the rain? Was it reported in the article? Or was the article presented in a way to show only some negative effect of global warming?
Maybe the article should have read: "Three Years of Rain in One Day Makes Oman's Barren Desert Bloom."
Of course, that would upset the climate change enthusiasts who would cancel their subsription to the newspaper.
-
I'm curious about Oman. Did all that rain help grow vegetation? Were there any positive results of the rain? Was it reported in the article? Or was the article presented in a way to show only some negative effect of global warming?
Growing vegetation is rather hard in the desert, and if there was a fertile topsoil, it was flushed away.
The only benefit seemed to be free fish in the supermarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unraBJHe2ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2EUMjZETU
Not really enough to offset the devastation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Growing vegetation is rather hard in the desert, and if there was a fertile topsoil, it was flushed away.
The only benefit seemed to be free fish in the supermarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unraBJHe2ss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX2EUMjZETU
Not really enough to offset the devastation.
Cheers,
Bart
First off, you're assuming that this Cyclone was caused by Global Warming caused by man. That's a knee jerk reaction I've been pointing out. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Second, the storm just happened two days ago. There's not going to be much positive results in so short a time. Also, you're confusing vegetation with farming. I didn't say farming would increase, only that vegetation would increase in the desert. It's possible that farming would increase too if rains continue as the desert takes on other qualities to support farming. I was out in the American desert a few weeks ago in New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. I saw how the Navajo Indians used water to irrigate desert areas so farming could be done. The Israelis have done that considerably. Once you get the water, all sorts of good things can happen. But if you're mind is into negativity, you'll miss the positive results.
-
Alan - you are really posting a bunch of nonsense. As Bart noted the flooding was disastrous and there won't be any positive results. It's like saying all the rain from last year's Texas hurricane was a good thing!!
I will leave it up to Bart to respond to n further posts on this thread. It's just not worth the time for me to continue punting or what is science and what is myth. I'm sure this thread will eventually peter out and rise again like a phoenix.
-
That's why I don't believe in any religion, but firmly believe in a God as a form of overarching authority/grand-planner/whatever you prefer to use to describe something we have, since man appeared, felt to exist within our own souls and heads. I'm told there are no atheists in a falling aircraft, but that's a hard one to prove, although the sentiment is not difficult to grasp; well, I would have thought that until a day or two ago when I realised that a lot of simple things turns out to be difficult to grasp...
;-)
Rob, I've been in a couple falling aircraft. Fortunately they didn't fall all the way. But I can tell you that panic keeps you from thinking about God or anything else except getting the aircraft under control.
-
Rob, I've been in a couple falling aircraft. Fortunately they didn't fall all the way. But I can tell you that panic keeps you from thinking about God or anything else except getting the aircraft under control.
Indeed, if you are doing the driving flying! Just sitting there in the back of it (with a hostess on your lap to distract, if lucky) is another scene, easily replicable in the passenger seat of a car driven by an idiot.
;-)
-
Alan - you are really posting a bunch of nonsense. As Bart noted the flooding was disastrous and there won't be any positive results. It's like saying all the rain from last year's Texas hurricane was a good thing!!
I will leave it up to Bart to respond to n further posts on this thread. It's just not worth the time for me to continue punting or what is science and what is myth. I'm sure this thread will eventually peter out and rise again like a phoenix.
If the cyclone was caused by global warming as you and Bart are implying, then that area is due to get rain at other times that it would not have gotten before Global Warming. That new rainfall will be more moderate most of the time so that the land will benefit from it. Storms are outliers. It's what's going on the rest of the time that mostly matters.
Even storms have their benefits. I remember a time in the New York area when we had a drought. All sorts of conservation was instituted. Along came a hurricane that refilled NYC reservoirs and ended a multi-year emergence. Something similar happened in the west recently when snow storms and devastating floods ended their drought to reasonable levels. Water, seemingly too much at times, has its benefits. But you don't want to acknowledge it because it goes against your global warming theories.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/10/california-water-use-continues-to-increase-as-conservation-declines/
-
Evidence, the 3 year amount of rain that fell in 1 day in Oman supports the hypothesis that the amounts of extreme precipitation will increase due to the larger capacity of warmer air to hold moisture.
Crikey! Any increase in rainfall in arid regions should be welcomed. However, the devastation caused by storms, the destruction of lives and property, should be addressed.
I guess I'll have to repeat the same points I've made previously on this issue of extreme weather events.
I live in Australia, which is well known as 'the land of floods and droughts', so I'm familiar with the way the media reports on every major flood or drought as being the worst on record, and is presented as evidence to support the negative consequences of man-made global warming.
I suspect that most people will just accept what the media presents, possibly because they don't have the time, and in some cases the nous and curiosity, to do their own investigation.
This current storm and flooding in Oman is a typical example of the problem of the unscientific attribution of a particular storm to 'man-made' global warming, and the unscientific use of the event to support the argument that floods and droughts are getting worse, globally.
Because I'm curious and unbiased, and place great importance on substantiated facts, I've just done an internet search of the recorded history of storms and flooding in the Oman region.
Wikipedia has addressed the issue. What might appear to be the worst storm in the Oman general area occurred on June 6th 2007. However, there was also a major storm in 1890 which resulted in 757 deaths. Who knows how devastating the storms were that occurred before this record that does not go earlier than 1881.
"The 1890 Storm
After entering the Gulf of Oman, a cyclone struck Sohar in northeastern Oman after passing just northeast of Muscat, where it washed ships ashore. There, the storm dropped 286 mm (11.3 in) of rainfall over 24 hours, the highest daily precipitation total in the nation's history. High winds wrecked many houses, and about 50 people died in Muscat and nearby Muttrah. Inland flooding downed thousands of date palm trees and inundated valleys. Nationally, the storm killed at least 757 people."
But what is very revealing, is the regularity of storms in this area, from 1881 to the present. The obvious question is, why have people not secured themselves against the almost certain repetition of previous storms?
If a storm blows down palm trees which flatten your house, then a very obvious lesson should be learned. Don't plant palm trees within falling distance of your house.
If your roof blows off, without the effect of falling palm trees, then make sure you have a strengthened roof that can resist the force of previous storms in your area.
The following Wikipedia article lists about 60 storm events in the Oman region from 1881 to the present. That's an average of one storm every 2 to 3 years, although not all of them were devastating of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arabian_Peninsula_tropical_cyclones#Pre-1900
Increasing rainfall plus increasing CO2 levels should help to provide food security for the increasing population of mankind, and help the growth of newly planted forests to increase biodiversity and perhaps even stabilize the climate in certain areas.
The real tragedy is that we don't seem to have the political nous and commonsense to capitalize and exploit the benefits of rising CO2 levels, a warmer climate, and increased rainfall, and use our energy resources to protect our citizens from the recurrence of the known extreme weather events that have occurred regularly in the past.
-
I am more and more appalled by this religious treatment of people involed in scientific fields. Even the term “scientists” is increadibly nonchalant, as it lumps everyone into one single, uber-human category.
See where I am going with this? Scientists are human. They, just as doctors, or any other profession, can be good and can be bad, highly conscientious or downright evil. Cheating, falsifying, chasing money, wheather for themselves or research.
That's why science isn't believed till it's replicated and thought over by many different people.
Your statements on science are off the wall. What happened? Did you ask a researcher out on a date and she refused?
-
It's the people who blindly follow so-called scientific theories that are the sheeple. It's harder to go against a trend and be an independent thinker and have abuse dumped on you. It's easier to quote some journal to prove how smart you are to other people.
A lot of people confuse contrarianism with skepticism. If you are going to be a skeptic, you'd better have good science to back up your point of view.
This reminds of a conversation I had years ago in a previous life. I was describing the basic concepts of special relativity to someone who had asked me about the topic. When I was done, he replied, "Nope, I don't buy it."
-
The global warming situation is alarming. This year, in Newfoundland, the place which almost every year guaranteed a good spring crop of icebergs, they observed a 80% collapse of the precious commodity. In other words, that's about twice as high as percentage of US voters strongly disapproving Trump's presidency (40% according to latest Rasmussen poll). Or only 1% of the 1,000 icy bergs floating by the NL coast in 2017.
Robert Bartlett, the owner and operator of whale watching and iceberg tour company Trinity Eco-Tours, says he's seen fewer than 10 icebergs since the province's prime iceberg season kicked off at the start of May. He says in previous years he'd have seen 40 to 50 by now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/slow-start-to-iceberg-season-1.4679823
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may25
-
A lot of people confuse contrarianism with skepticism. If you are going to be a skeptic, you'd better have good science to back up your point of view.
This reminds of a conversation I had years ago in a previous life. I was describing the basic concepts of special relativity to someone who had asked me about the topic. When I was done, he replied, "Nope, I don't buy it."
I'm 73. I trust my gut and instincts more than the bias in what I often read. I take everything with a grain of salt. The whole global warming thing seems hyped.
Even if true, I'm not convinced a couple of degrees are worse than what we have now. Who says that it just happens that the temperature as was around 150 years ago is the best possible condition in the millions of years man and nature have been around? That belief takes a huge amount of hubris. Especially when man has multiplied as have other species and the world seems more full as it's gotten warmer since the ice started melting 12000 years ago when the last ice age ended. Where I live in New Jersey, deer ticks are multiplying like crazy because of warmer winters. That means deer and field mice populations are growing. They're building all kinds of new housing developments where I live (aargh) which tells me people populations are expanding. There's more farming going on. More vegetation. Etc. Who's getting hurt? Even the polar bears seem to be doing fairly well despite the hype. So rich people will have to build their shore homes on stilts? I'm not particularly worried. Sure, some peoples will have major impact as they have by climate since civilization began. Less Canadians will visit Florida in winter hurting the economic situation down there. But overall, I don't think warming will have a baleful effect. It's much ado about little.
-
This reminds of a conversation I had years ago in a previous life. I was describing the basic concepts of special relativity to someone who had asked me about the topic. When I was done, he replied, "Nope, I don't buy it."
Which reminds me of Nicolas Roeg's 1985 movie, "Insignificance", where there is a scene where Marilyn Monroe explains it to Albert Einstein ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS0n_fr1Fyo
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Your statements on science are off the wall...
Care to actually quote my statements on science that are off the wall? That scientists are human, perhaps? Sure, if you think they are demigods.
-
I'm 73. I trust my gut and instincts more than the bias in what I often read.
This is risky and history is not on your side. If we only trust what we see and feel, we'd still think the earth was flat and we would not know about viruses and bacteria. That's why humans have embarked on a path of collecting data and analyzing it, it has served us well.
If, as the data collected so far seems to indicate, human activity is perturbing planetary systems, we would irresponsible NOT to study this. What reason is there not to?
The attitudes I am seeing here are puzzling. Some say the entire field of study is a waste of time and money, seemingly based on an assumption that there is nothing to find. Others regard scientific exploration itself as suspect, despite a long history of EXACTLY the opposite being true. What are people afraid of?
-
I haven't seen anybody say the field of study is a waste of time. What I've seen is people pointing out that we don't yet and may never have the tools we need to predict long term climate patterns. Nobody's ignoring science. What we're pointing out is that the science changes fairly rapidly. As I've pointed out several times, when I was at University of Michigan in the early fifties, a new ice age was imminent. Now we're about to burn up from global warming if we don't first drown in epeiric seas. Yet it's well known, even by "scientists" that: (1) the algorithms we're using to make our predictions are wild guesses at best, and (2) the data we're feeding into those algorithms are questionable at best. As a result, the beautiful charts we see posted here, demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt that we're doomed and ought to go hide under the bed are bullshit made beautiful by political artifice.
Oh, and Robert, you seem to have missed Alan's word: "bias."
-
This is risky and history is not on your side. If we only trust what we see and feel, we'd still think the earth was flat and we would not know about viruses and bacteria. That's why humans have embarked on a path of collecting data and analyzing it, it has served us well.
If, as the data collected so far seems to indicate, human activity is perturbing planetary systems, we would irresponsible NOT to study this. What reason is there not to?
The attitudes I am seeing here are puzzling. Some say the entire field of study is a waste of time and money, seemingly based on an assumption that there is nothing to find. Others regard scientific exploration itself as suspect, despite a long history of EXACTLY the opposite being true. What are people afraid of?
As Russ pointed out in the last post, I'd rather trust my gut than what appears to be biased reporting. I'm not a flat earther. I'm a design engineer with a love for science, discovery, and nature.
Recently, I had (have) a medical issue where the pulmonologists and the radiologists are at complete odds as to what's wrong with me. How could it be that brilliant doctors who went to college, medical school, interned and did their residence and currently are afiliated with the finest hospitals (NY Columbia Presbyterian and Boston's Mass General)and medical schools (Columbia and Harvard) in NYC and Boston cannot agree on what's wrong or what to do. After all, they're all looking at the same tests and CT scans and have access to all the current theories and research. Yet, I'm the one who's left to make a decision as to which doctors are right and who's wrong and what path to take. It's been enormously stressful. I'm left with my gut to tell me what to do with no guarentees I will be right. Yet, we all are to believe that all the climate science is in. All the research has been done. There's no reversing what many are saying about global warming. That warming has to all be negative even if that is where we're going.
How many times in my life have I seen research overturned with more current research? Scientists and researchers and brilliant people are also not immuned from the band-wagon effect. We all tend to believe the last thing we read. If takes guts to take a contrarian position espoecially if you're a scientist who might be criticized by others in your field.
I like to keep an open mind. Also, I am very suspicious when others want me to spend my money on their favorite projects.
-
Recently, I had (have) a medical issue where the pulmonologists and the radiologists are at complete odds as to what's wrong with me. How could it be that brilliant doctors who went to college, medical school, interned and did their residence and currently are afiliated with the finest hospitals (NY Columbia Presbyterian and Boston's Mass General)and medical schools (Columbia and Harvard) in NYC and Boston cannot agree on what's wrong or what to do. After all, they're all looking at the same tests and CT scans and have access to all the current theories and research. Yet, I'm the one who's left to make a decision as to which doctors are right and who's wrong and what path to take. It's been enormously stressful. I'm left with my gut to tell me what to do with no guarentees I will be right. Yet, we all are to believe that all the climate science is in. All the research has been done. There's no reversing what many are saying about global warming. That warming has to all be negative even if that is where we're going.
Alan, when it comes to practising doctors, I fully agree with you. There are some outstanding physicians and briliant surgeons out there, but unfortunately when it comes to reasoning, analysis, and acceptance of new medical developments, most doctors (at least in my experience) fare rather poorly. Add to it the fear of malpractice suites and following blindly outdated advice from the medical, dietary and dental associations, it's not suprising that medical errors are the third leading cause of deaths in USA.
-
Alan, when it comes to practising doctors, I fully agree with you. There are some outstanding physicians and briliant surgeons out there, but unfortunately when it comes to reasoning, analysis, and acceptance of new medical developments, most doctors (at least in my experience) fare rather poorly. Add to it the fear of malpractice suites and following blindly outdated advice from the medical, dietary and dental associations, it's not suprising that medical errors are the third leading cause of deaths in USA.
It's scary isn't it? We might be better off with a witch doctor or a shaman. I should pray more. :)
The issue in my case is that the doctors are interpreting the same data differently. Each is concluding the CT scans to mean something different. Of course, there's room for different interpretations. No science is exact. But that's true about climate science as well. Especially when you're trying to look decades into the future with data that is questionable or not complete or with factors who's effects are unknown and therefore cannot be incorporated into current theories and models.
-
The solution, Alan, is simple: don’t ask for a second opinion. I’m sure Robert doesn’t. After all, what doctors practice is science, and we all know (thanks, Bart!) the science is settled, with a 97% consensus, why bother with a second opinion? Robert probably simply needs to know if the doctor is anti-Trump to trust his life to him.
;)
-
The solution, Alan, is simple: don’t ask for a second opinion. I’m sure Robert doesn’t. After all, what doctors practice is science, and we all know (thanks, Bart!) the science is settled, with a 97% consensus, why bother with a second opinion? Robert probably simply needs to know if the doctor is anti-Trump to trust his life to him.
;)
My MD who is certified in both internal medicine and endocrinologist is an excellent diagnostician and I've been going to him for about 35 years. He is a very conservative Republican and voted for Trump. We don't talk politics.
-
My MD who is certified in both internal medicine and endocrinologist is an excellent diagnostician and I've been going to him for about 35 years. He is a very conservative Republican and voted for Trump. We don't talk politics.
Which reminds me when Republican President Reagan got shot. As he entered the operating room, he asked the surgeon: “Please tell me you’re a Republican.”
-
My MD who is certified in both internal medicine and endocrinologist is an excellent diagnostician and I've been going to him for about 35 years. He is a very conservative Republican and voted for Trump. We don't talk politics.
My wife's doctor is an endocrinologist and internal medical doctor too. He's also a terrific diagnostician who saved my sister's life finding out she had a rare disease just based on a hunch he had. A kind of guy who thinks out-of-the-box. Most people, including doctors, and climatologists, tend to follow protocols developed. They put everyone and everything in the same box. Since they average everything, they get average results. You might as well see a computer.
-
The solution, Alan, is simple: don’t ask for a second opinion. I’m sure Robert doesn’t. After all, what doctors practice is science, and we all know (thanks, Bart!) the science is settled, with a 97% consensus, why bother with a second opinion?
I'm disappointed, but not surprised. If you think that (I presume medical) doctors practice science, a reasonable discussion becomes impossible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
OMG! It is witchcraft then!? My worst suspicions just got confirmed.
-
The solution, Alan, is simple: don’t ask for a second opinion. I’m sure Robert doesn’t. After all, what doctors practice is science, and we all know (thanks, Bart!) the science is settled, with a 97% consensus, why bother with a second opinion? Robert probably simply needs to know if the doctor is anti-Trump to trust his life to him.
;)
What a bizarre response.
Medical diagnostics can be very complex, we're not dealing with a simple measurement experiment in a lab. What this has to do with scientific research, however, I don't know.
-
... Medical diagnostics can be very complex, we're not dealing with a simple measurement experiment in a lab...
Sorry, I got confused... are we talking about climate science or...?
-
My wife's doctor is an endocrinologist and internal medical doctor too. He's also a terrific diagnostician who saved my sister's life finding out she had a rare disease just based on a hunch he had. A kind of guy who thinks out-of-the-box. Most people, including doctors, and climatologists, tend to follow protocols developed. They put everyone and everything in the same box. Since they average everything, they get average results. You might as well see a computer.
That's what I do. I always consult my computer and often its advice is very different from the doctor's recommendation. Doing this it saved my life, and I have several other friends who are of the same opinion. The main challenge is to sift through the real, fake and stupid links.
However, sometimes the doctors employ the latest technological breakthroughs. I noticed that when my GP recently checked my pulse, he used his finger and the latest iPhone with a stopwatch app.
-
That's what I do. I always consult my computer and often its advice is very different from the doctor's recommendation. Doing this it saved my life, and I have several other friends who are of the same opinion. The main challenge is to sift through the real, fake and stupid links.
However, sometimes the doctors employ the latest technological breakthroughs. I noticed that when my GP recently checked my pulse, he used his finger and the latest iPhone with a stopwatch app.
When my urologist checks my prostate, I can't see what finger he uses. :)
Which reminds me of the kid that was saved by her iPhone heart rate monitor.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/01/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-saves-florida-teens-life
-
They just proved what I predicted here months and month ago. That reefs will follow the terrain as sea levels rise or fall.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/great-barrier-reef-has-had-five-near-death-experiences-past-30000-years
-
I hope your medics comeup with the right diagnosis and your problem successfully resolved.
Twice, over maybe three years, I have gone to my local quack wondering about what I think to be a hernia. He told me, each time, that it is not hernia but a weakness in the wall of the stomach. I thought they were the same thing.
Anyway, my doctor granddaughter was out here on a flying visit, and as a second opinion that I forced upon her, put her finger on it, said cough, then said you have a hernia.
Reassuring, isn't it? I did ask about mesh, but she assured me it's not the same type of mesh that has been effing up women with collapse problems.
I think I shall concentrate on the heart.
-
When my urologist checks my prostate, I can't see what finger he uses. :)
Which reminds me of the kid that was saved by her iPhone heart rate monitor.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/01/apple-watch-heart-rate-monitor-saves-florida-teens-life
The idea that someone of normal intelligence would not realise that she had a resting heart rate of 190bpm is, shall we say, a little hard to believe, as is the assertion that it was the first sign of chronic kidney disease or the assertion that diagnosis at that stage could "save her life". Sounds (to me) like the usual ignorant drivel one hears when people with no understanding of it speak of medicine.
Jeremy
-
When my urologist checks my prostate, I can't see what finger he uses. :)
Whatever finger he uses, measuring a pulse in such a way would surely result in an elevated heart rate.
-
Whatever finger he uses, measuring a pulse in such a way would surely result in an elevated heart rate.
But whose? http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103793.msg953537#msg953537
Jeremy
-
Sorry, I got confused... are we talking about climate science or...?
Like in most fields of science, the basics are pretty straightforward because they have their foundation in Physics, or Chemistry, or Geology, to name a few.
For example, the CO2 levels can be accurately measured, and its spectral absorption characteristics are well known. Also its origin is well understood, so it's possible to develop several scenarios with varying amounts of anthropogenic influence between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
Like in the Medical field, the human factor is the more difficult one to judge and predict ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/05/29/leaping-from-winter-to-summer-in-just-weeks-the-midwest-is-sweltering/?utm_term=.78f145dafe22
Earliest 100 degree day in Minneapolis and other records throughout the midwest.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/05/29/leaping-from-winter-to-summer-in-just-weeks-the-midwest-is-sweltering/?utm_term=.78f145dafe22
Earliest 100 degree day in Minneapolis and other records throughout the midwest.
What's your point? Is that good or bad? It seems better and warmer weather is good for crops in the Midwest.
https://agfax.com/2018/05/09/usda-crop-progress-planting-jumped-ahead-with-improved-weather-dtn/
The problem with global warming supporters is that they only state that warmer weather is bad. As I stated above, what seemed normal 150 years may actually be less valuable overall. A few extra degree may turn out to be a boon for species, farming and other things. Don;t get stuck on just noticing the change. Honestly appraise all effects due to the change. We may find on average things will be better.
-
What's your point? Is that good or bad? My point is that it is an example of extreme weather and that's all. I'm done responding to all the dumb replies and will only be publishing links to extreme and interesting weather patterns. I plan to ignore all responses as it's just trolling. If you don't want to read the article don't read it; pretty simple rule. From now on only links to articles will be posted and I'm not going to engage in any further discussion. Feel free to report me to the moderator; he pretty much dislikes me anyway.
-
What's your point? Is that good or bad? It seems better and warmer weather is good for crops in the Midwest.
https://agfax.com/2018/05/09/usda-crop-progress-planting-jumped-ahead-with-improved-weather-dtn/
The problem with global warming supporters is that they only state that warmer weather is bad. As I stated above, what seemed normal 150 years may actually be less valuable overall. A few extra degree may turn out to be a boon for species, farming and other things. Don;t get stuck on just noticing the change. Honestly appraise all effects due to the change. We may find on average things will be better.
You don't understand, Alan. If global warming (currently known as "climate change" since no warming has taken place for more than a decade) is good, then left-wing government types have no control over you. You're free to heat your house with coal or natural gas instead of solar panels or windmills. You're free to drive a big honker of a minivan. You're free to vote any way you want to vote. Government control of individuals' private lives might become even more difficult than it already is.
-
When my urologist checks my prostate, I can't see what finger he uses. :)
Doctor "Don't be embarassed if this examination causes an erection"
Patient "I don't feel aroused at all"
Doctor "I wasn't talking about you"
-
Doctor "Don't be embarassed if this examination causes an erection"
Patient "I don't feel aroused at all"
Doctor "I wasn't talking about you"
Now that you mention it, my doctor did have a smile on his face.
-
So maybe it wasn't a finger after all.
-
So maybe it wasn't a finger after all.
Yikes! Now you're going to get us both barred.
-
One way to bring the temperature down is to buy a more efficient airplane.
A prosperity gospel televangelist from Louisiana says Jesus has asked him to buy a new private jet. Jesse Duplantis, leader of Jesse Duplantis Ministries and the owner of three other private jets, is asking his followers to chip in so his ministry can purchase a brand new Dassault Falcon 7X, which runs about $54 million. In a video recently published on his website, Duplantis says the planes get him closer to the Lord.
Duplantis goes on to tell his followers that jets, especially nice ones with good fuel efficiency, allow him and his ministries to reach more people around the world. And no, it wouldn't technically be his, it would be the ministry's. "All it's gonna do is it's going to touch people, it's going to reach people, it's going to change lives one soul at a time," Duplantis said of the aircraft.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/us/jesse-duplantis-plane-falcon-7x-prosperity-gospel-trnd/index.html
-
One way to bring the temperature down is to buy a more efficient airplane.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/us/jesse-duplantis-plane-falcon-7x-prosperity-gospel-trnd/index.html
God works in increasingly mysterious ways.
-
You don't understand, Alan. If global warming (currently known as "climate change" since no warming has taken place for more than a decade) is good, then left-wing government types have no control over you. You're free to heat your house with coal or natural gas instead of solar panels or windmills. You're free to drive a big honker of a minivan. You're free to vote any way you want to vote. Government control of individuals' private lives might become even more difficult than it already is.
We may all need this (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/) in the future.
-
From now on only links to articles will be posted and I'm not going to engage in any further discussion. Feel free to report me to the moderator; he pretty much dislikes me anyway.
Relax, Alan. I can pretty much guarantee that I shan't ban anyone for silence.
Jeremy
-
A mental dilemma: is it better to keep wearing one's knickers in a twist or to take them off and, in so doing, reveal the naked emperor once within?
Choices, choices.
-
"Before The Flood" movie about the global climate change for all skeptics is on Netflix now.
https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80141928
-
Kind of like Hanoi Jane's "The China Syndrome," Les?
See the movie, then read "Climate Change Has Run Its Course" in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Here's a short quote from the article:
"...climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."
The author then goes on to document the bases for this statement.
-
Kind of like Hanoi Jane's "The China Syndrome," Les?
Not quite, apparently their budget was much smaller.
But a lot of real evidence and also some stunning photography. Calving icebergs, Alberta oil sands, and quite a few floods.
-
Well, that's the problem with a smaller budget for a propaganda movie. All you can afford to come up with is calving icebergs, Alberta oil sands, and quite a few floods.
-
If that evidence is not enough, here is another one, potentially more deadly. In Ontario, number of ticks carring the Lyme disease is on alarming increase. The outbreak curve over the last few years is like that hockey stick.
Over the weekend, I was talking to friends who belong to hiking and canoeing clubs. This year, many hikers came home with ticks on their bodies after a hike through the local forests and the canoing club issued the following advice for groups of paddlers:
- make at least three stops per day and check each other for embedded ticks
- take at least 3 swims per day. Apparently, as long as the ticks are not fully embedded in the skin, the exposure to the water will cause them to fall off.
I'm all for the 3 swims a day, but not so fond of the close body inspections. I'm going to recommend these precautions also to my camera club trip leaders.
Over the past 40 years, I took quite a few hikes and canoeing trips and never had the pleasure encountering ticks. Only bears, bees, snakes, and mosquitos.
I knew that the ticks can fall on hikers from the trees, but never worried about them when paddling. Not sure if the winds carry ticks over the narrow rivers or along the lake shore, or if they can attach to the humans only when they are on the shore or doing the portage. The good thing is that when you portage the canoe on your shoulders, the canoe makes a good shield against any falling projectiles. However, since you use both hands to steady the canoe, you can't swat the mosquitos which will invariably find their way to your face, neck and hands.
-
I stopped going in the woods because of more ticks here in NY and NJ. But their Lyme disease-carrying danger to humans is only one side of the picture. Warmer winters have allowed expansion of white tail deer and white footer mice populations, the tick's natural hosts who are unaffected by Lyme disease. Warmer weather has allowed expansion of the forest. So while they're an apparent negative from Lyme disease, the positives seem to out-weigh the negatives. This is the point I've been making about this whole topic. The Nature shows have an agenda and they only tell half the story.
Checking for ticks can been fun. Since they like to attach in hidden, dark places that's hard to see, you have to ask your spouse or girlfriend to check you out and you have to do the same with her. It makes for more fun when you have to share a shower at the end of the day. Quit complaining. :)
Speaking of Lyme and ticks, ticks don't fall on you. They grab on to you as you brush against them while they wait in the brush. Check out permethrin impregnated clothing. I use that clothing and when I did, never got a tick on me. It goes under the trade name Insect Shield and have many clothing and equipment manufactures who are licensed to use it for shirts, hats, tents, pants, etc. https://www.insectshield.com/
-
If you are in an area where Lyme ticks are prevalent ask your MD for a prescription of doxycycline, a broad spectrum antibiotic that can be used right after a tick bite. A single 200mg dose within 72 hours of the tick bite will prevent Lyme disease. there are also rapid DNA tests for Lyme disease if you have a lab in your area. You just need to give them the picked off tick within 24 hours they can tell you if it carried Lyme. I had this happen to me several years ago; the tick was positive for Lyme and I took the antibiotic and a follow up blood test six months later showed no Lyme in my system.
Best precaution is always long pants tucked into socks and long sleeve shirts that are tightly cinched on the wrist and neck. This will reduce the area one has to check for ticks.
-
DEET also suppose to work but I don't have any experience with it.
Here's a good web page for how to deal with ticks. For photographers who go into the woods, it's an extremely important issue. Even for the rest of us who have back yards, ticks can become a danger. My dog almost died from an infection and children are vulnerable as well by just playing in back yards. https://www.ticksafety.com/
-
Checking for ticks can been fun. Since they like to attach in hidden, dark places that's hard to see, you have to ask your spouse or girlfriend to check you out and you have to do the same with her. It makes for more fun when you have to share a shower at the end of the day. Quit complaining. :)
Speaking of Lyme and ticks, ticks don't fall on you. They grab on to you as you brush against them while they wait in the brush. Check out permethrin impregnated clothing. I use that clothing and when I did, never got a tick on me. It goes under the trade name Insect Shield and have many clothing and equipment manufactures who are licensed to use it for shirts, hats, tents, pants, etc. https://www.insectshield.com/
40 years ago, when I was hiking and paddling with girls in their twenties or early thirties, it would have been indeed fun and I wouldn't have complained. It's different now.
Since you mentioned a dark hidden place that's hard to see, one of my friends found a tick embedded extremely close to that spot. He didn't say whether the tick fell on him and travelled down or if it climbed up from his shoes. Either way, it found the warmest and darkest spot on his body. His wife couldn't extract the culprit, so she drove him to the clinic where they had to use a knife to remove the tick. As you can imagine that created another painful experience. Not romantic at all (well, funny in some way).
Thanks for the tip about Insect Shield clothing.
-
If you are in an area where Lyme ticks are prevalent ask your MD for a prescription of doxycycline, a broad spectrum antibiotic that can be used right after a tick bite. A single 200mg dose within 72 hours of the tick bite will prevent Lyme disease. there are also rapid DNA tests for Lyme disease if you have a lab in your area. You just need to give them the picked off tick within 24 hours they can tell you if it carried Lyme. I had this happen to me several years ago; the tick was positive for Lyme and I took the antibiotic and a follow up blood test six months later showed no Lyme in my system.
Best precaution is always long pants tucked into socks and long sleeve shirts that are tightly cinched on the wrist and neck. This will reduce the area one has to check for ticks.
Good point. The infection rate of ticks having Lyme disease here in NJ runs 50-70%. They say it takes at least 24 hours for the tick to transfer the Lyme after it attaches to you. So if you find and remove the tick right away, you have less of a chance of getting Lyme. I've taken doxycycline after I found an engorged tick on me. So I knew it was on at least 24 hours. I did send the tick out for testing and it came back positive with Lyme. But the test took a week. I'm glad I didn't wait to take the doxycycline. The whole process of checking, using Permethrin, checking the dog also when you get home etc, had just made going into the woods so much of a chore, I just stopped. Also, my wife didn't like to check me out any more. The fun wore off. :( That's one side of climate change I don't like. The tick situation has really gotten so bad especially where I live in NJ.
-
40 years ago, when I was hiking and paddling with girls in their twenties or early thirties, it would have been indeed fun and I wouldn't have complained. It's different now.
Since you mentioned a dark hidden place that's hard to see, one of my friends found a tick embedded extremely close to that spot. He didn't say whether the tick fell on him and travelled down or if it climbed up from his shoes. Either way, it found the warmest and darkest spot on his body. His wife couldn't extract the culprit, so she drove him to the clinic where they had to use a knife to remove the tick. As you can imagine that created another painful experience. Not romantic at all (well, funny in some way).
Thanks for the tip about Insect Shield clothing.
Sorry to hear about your friends problem. Interesting story to tell around the camp fireplace. :)
Insect Shield clothing is impregnated with Permethrin. Good for 70 washings. You don't use a cleaners but have to wash it. You could buy a can of spray-on Permethrin. (Do not spray on your skin). You spray it on your clothing, boots, tents, etc, and let it dry overnight. It's good for two weeks or two washings. I think Deet maker Sawyer makes it as well.
-
Good point. The infection rate of ticks having Lyme disease here in NJ runs 50-70%. They say it takes at least 24 hours for the tick to transfer the Lyme after it attaches to you. So if you find and remove the tick right away, you have less of a chance of getting Lyme. I've taken doxycycline after I found an engorged tick on me. So I knew it was on at least 24 hours. I did send the tick out for testing and it came back positive with Lyme. But the test took a week. I'm glad I didn't wait to take the doxycycline. The whole process of checking, using Permethrin, checking the dog also when you get home etc, had just made going into the woods so much of a chore, I just stopped. Also, my wife didn't like to check me out any more. The fun wore off. :( That's one side of climate change I don't like. The tick situation has really gotten so bad especially where I live in NJ.
Just two weeks ago, at a hiking club meeting, one speaker mentioned that in Canada, if you bring a tick to a clinic for inspection whether it carries Lyme disease, they will send it to a special office (I think, to Vancouver, BC) which will take up to 6 weeks to send back the results. By then, of course, it is too late to take the antibiotics. However, if you take the tick to any vet, they can give you the results the same day and you'll know if you should take the antibiotics.
Hopefully, with the increase of the ticks and the Lyme disease cases, they will change the inspection methods for humans.
-
Just two weeks ago, at a hiking club meeting, one speaker mentioned that in Canada, if you bring a tick to a clinic for inspection whether it carries Lyme disease, they will send it to a special office (I think, to Vancouver, BC) which will take up to 6 weeks to send back the results. By then, of course, it is too late to take the antibiotics. However, if you take the tick to any vet, they can give you the results the same day and you'll know if you should take the antibiotics.
Hopefully, with the increase of the ticks and the Lyme disease cases, they will change the inspection methods for humans.
Yeah, if you go to the vet, he also gives you a dog bone treat when you're done. :)
-
They also said that in order to see a vet you have to have a dog. Which I don't have at this time. Fortunately, several of my friends have pets that could help out.
-
They also said that in order to see a vet you have to have a dog. Which I don't have at this time. Fortunately, several of my friends have pets that could help out.
I can see the scene:
"Hi Doc. Here's my master. He's got a tick. Could you check him out? Woof."
-
Kind of like Hanoi Jane's "The China Syndrome," Les?
See the movie, then read "Climate Change Has Run Its Course" in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Here's a short quote from the article:
"...climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."
The author then goes on to document the bases for this statement.
It's generally best to ignore Hollywood even in (semi-)serious discussions.
As for your WSJ reference, it's interesting how respectable the main stream media becomes when it tells you what you want to hear. As fas I know, the WSJ is not the final arbiter on whether or not "climate change has run its course", which is a bizarre headline at best.
-
Not half as bizarre as the crap that comes from the true believers of the MSM.
-
It's generally best to ignore Hollywood even in (semi-)serious discussions.
As for your WSJ reference, it's interesting how respectable the main stream media becomes when it tells you what you want to hear. As fas I know, the WSJ is not the final arbiter on whether or not "climate change has run its course", which is a bizarre headline at best.
The WSJ is addressing climate change from a business standpoint. I wouldn't call WSJ the main street media. Since Trump, a lot of the hype about climate change and warming seems to have died down. The world may be moving on to its next big issue, whatever that may turn out to be. Maybe a new ice age? It seems to be a little colder lately. :)
-
Relax, Alan. I can pretty much guarantee that I shan't ban anyone for silence.
Jeremy
Aww, does someone need a cup of cocoa?????
-
Aww, does someone need a cup of cocoa?????
Only organic, responsibly grown and fair-priced ;)
-
"Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt’s climate claims
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/judge-orders-epa-to-disclose-any-science-backing-up-pruitts-climate-claims/
In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, adding, “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”
Based on what?"
"On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11."
This is going to be interesting ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Interesting situation with Pruitt. Didn't know judges could do that, but glad to see they can.
On the subject of temperature especially concerning the 100 degree weather we're having down here in Texas, I questioned why we're so concerned and worried about hot temperatures that go up 5 or so degrees above our core body temp of 98.6 degrees but don't seem to mind or be affected that much when the temp drops 50 degrees below core body temp in the Winter.
I mean we have the Polar Bear group of elderly folks diving into frigid water much colder than 40 or so degrees and no one is concerned they could die of cold exhaustion vs heat exhaustion in the Summer.
Hey, it's just a number to a certain degree, right?
-
Interesting situation with Pruitt. Didn't know judges could do that, but glad to see they can.
On the subject of temperature especially concerning the 100 degree weather we're having down here in Texas, I questioned why we're so concerned and worried about hot temperatures that go up 5 or so degrees above our core body temp of 98.6 degrees but don't seem to mind or be affected that much when the temp drops 50 degrees below core body temp in the Winter.
I mean we have the Polar Bear group of elderly folks diving into frigid water much colder than 40 or so degrees and no one is concerned they could die of cold exhaustion vs heat exhaustion in the Summer.
Hey, it's just a number to a certain degree, right?
Sort of like slowly bringing a frog to boil, they don't notice till it's too late. :)
-
We can take those temperature extremes only for a few minutes, whether cold or hot.
I swam both in freezing water (after coming out of a very hot sauna) and in 110F hot water in Chena, Alaska and the freezing water was much more pleasant.
In Chena, the hot water comes out of the ground at 165F (73C) and they mix it with cold water to keep the main pool at 106F, but when I was there, they had a problem with the cold water intake, so the resulting water temperature was just too hot to stay there for more than a minute. You would boil very quickly.
-
"Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt’s climate claims
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/judge-orders-epa-to-disclose-any-science-backing-up-pruitts-climate-claims/
In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, adding, “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”
Based on what?"
"On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11."
This is going to be interesting ...
Cheers,
Bart
The whole law suit is silly. Pruitt gave his opinion. To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government. Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says? In fact, any politician or government official? Even if they did present documentation, then what? Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion. The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses. And then what? So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers. Then what? The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money.
The only time where making the EPA release their studies makes sense is if the EPA changes a ruling that effects a person or company. Then if the person or company sues in court, and there is a trial, then the EPA would have to present documentation that would show how they came to their new conclusion and rule. That would be decided at trial.
Forcing government officials to back up what they said would have a deleterious effect on democracy. It would force them to say nothing on TV and just make the change. That would defeat the whole purpose of open and free debate in a Democracy. The way to handle it is to let others contradict Pruitt. Then the people can decide who they want to believe.
-
The judgment will be reversed on appeal. It's obviously an absurd ruling.
-
The whole law suit is silly. Pruitt gave his opinion. To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government. Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says? In fact, any politician or government official? Even if they did present documentation, then what? Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion. The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses. And then what? So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers. Then what? The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money.
Maybe it was some alternate science that Pruitt learned about inside his "cone of silence" (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html)), so naturally the rest of the climate research community would not know about it yet.
But I get your point. Imagine holding government officials to account, what kind of democracy would that be?
-
Maybe it was some alternate science that Pruitt learned about inside his "cone of silence" (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html)), so naturally the rest of the climate research community would not know about it yet.
But I get your point. Imagine holding government officials to account, what kind of democracy would that be?
Government officials are held to account during an election.
Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if every time someone posted their opinion they had to provide three corroborating links to science reports to prove their point? The moderators would be napping all the time.
If the PEER group has an issue with what the EPA does, let them sue the EPA and show the harm that was done to them by their new or revised ruling. That's how things are settled in court. Russ is right that this will be thrown out on appeal. You can't force people to provide evidence to what's going on in someone's mind because they gave an opinion.
-
Taking people to court for having an opinion against a prevailing consensus... not so unique or unusual. Just ask Galileo.
-
Taking people to court for having an opinion against a prevailing consensus... not so unique or unusual. Just ask Galileo.
Interesting. But I think Pruitt also disagrees with Galileo. :)
-
The whole law suit is silly. Pruitt gave his opinion. To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government. Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says? In fact, any politician or government official? Even if they did present documentation, then what? Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion. The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses. And then what? So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers. Then what? The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money.
You are wrong on this. A lot of what EPA has done in the past 18 months is in gross violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (I have a number of good friends who are environmental lawyers and working on various lawsuits against what Pruitt is trying to do). This is the primary reason why I'm pretty comfortable about why a lot of what has been proposed will never come to pass. The rulemaking process is very complex (in my work career I managed comments on more notices of proposed rulemaking than I can count) and attempts to change a rule already in effect have to go thorugh the same process; it has to be re-proposed, comments gathered and evaluated, and finally then can the new rule go into effect. the lone exception(s) to this are rules proposed late in the administration which can be undone by the review process that was already employed. However, the number of rules in this case are very small.
The only time where making the EPA release their studies makes sense is if the EPA changes a ruling that effects a person or company. Then if the person or company sues in court, and there is a trial, then the EPA would have to present documentation that would show how they came to their new conclusion and rule. That would be decided at trial.
Again, this is not necessarily true. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be used to get a lot of this information. This has been used by both industry and environmental groups over the years. We regularly filed FOIA requests with FDA when I was still working in the pharma industry.
-
Government officials are held to account during an election.
Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if every time someone posted their opinion they had to provide three corroborating links to science reports to prove their point? The moderators would be napping all the time.
If the PEER group has an issue with what the EPA does, let them sue the EPA and show the harm that was done to them by their new or revised ruling. That's how things are settled in court. Russ is right that this will be thrown out on appeal. You can't force people to provide evidence to what's going on in someone's mind because they gave an opinion.
Pruitt was appointed, not elected.
What do the posting standards of an online forum have to do with what's expected of someone in high office when speaking in public? Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?
The most astounding thing about Pruitt is that he still has his job, considering all the other controversies he has been involved in. But maybe this is how Trump is going about clearing out the swamp, by putting such clowns in charge (or leaving positions open) that those offices become, in effect, completely useless.
You may be correct about the specifics of this specific court case. I don't understand the details of the law suit to begin with, seems nuts to me at first glance, but lots of things that happen in courts mystify me.
-
Pruitt is not being forced to justify his opinion or to back up his statement. The suit is a Freedom of Information case asking the EPA to produce any existing documents which Pruitt relied on to reach his opinion. Pruitt is perfectly free to state that there are no such EPA documents. In fact, that is probably the result the suit hopes to obtain.
-
... Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?...
Yes.
-
There's a difference between a personal opinion espoused on the TV and an official ruling. If Pruitt says climate change doesn't exist, that's an opinion. He doesn't have to prove it.
If the EPA on the other hand officially changes EPA procedures that coal plants no longer have to meet emission standards because it doesn't effect the environment, that's a ruling that people can sue on. The EPA would then have to provide documents showing how they came up with their ruling in a court of law. Even then, I'm not sure they have to prove anything as they are granted a lot of leeway. During Obama's term, many conservatives felt the EPA had gone too far with regulating the environment. The courts didn't stop him or the EPA because the EPA is granted wide latitude in deciding.
What it comes down too is political. The EPA makes many decisions that have nothing to do with studies or research but who's in charge and what the voters want them to do. Also, decisions are not only made based on science. There are other factors such as the economic cost to implement which the voters may feel override the scientific problems. So even if you could prove that climate change is real, voters may not want to spend their tax money to do anything about it. That's a political decision. You can't prove that Pruitt is wrong. Based on the vote, he is right. That's why elections have consequences.
Regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that requires release of information. That's fine. I have no problem with that. It's the law. In fact I support it. But to ask for information based on how someone came up with a personal opinion espoused on a TV program but isn't an official government ruling, doesn't seem legal to me.
-
Pruitt was appointed, not elected.
What do the posting standards of an online forum have to do with what's expected of someone in high office when speaking in public? Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?
The most astounding thing about Pruitt is that he still has his job, considering all the other controversies he has been involved in. But maybe this is how Trump is going about clearing out the swamp, by putting such clowns in charge (or leaving positions open) that those offices become, in effect, completely useless.
You may be correct about the specifics of this specific court case. I don't understand the details of the law suit to begin with, seems nuts to me at first glance, but lots of things that happen in courts mystify me.
Pruitt was appointed by and works for the President who was elected. So the government Administrators are ultimately responding to the people. That's what democracy is all about. During the Obama administration, I didn't hear you supporting conservatives who complained the EPA was going too far in regulations. They were doing what Obama's voters wanted from them. No one cared about "proof". It's all about policy. I guess it depends whose ox is being gored.
-
What it comes down too is political. The EPA makes many decisions that have nothing to do with studies or research but who's in charge and what the voters want them to do. Also, decisions are not only made based on science. There are other factors such as the economic cost to implement which the voters may feel override the scientific problems. So even if you could prove that climate change is real, voters may not want to spend their tax money to do anything about it. That's a political decision. You can't prove that Pruitt is wrong. Based on the vote, he is right. That's why elections have consequences.
As per my previous post, this is factually incorrect. EPA has to obey all parts of the Administrative Procedures Act regarding Agency rulemaking. They must provide a justification for the proposed rule and provide ample time for interested parties to comment. When they publish the final rule they must address all the received comments in going forward with the rule. It's also not uncommon for there to be changes in the final rule based on comments received. The same thing goes when they are changing an existing rule and this is where the Pruitt EPA is in a boatload of trouble.
-
As per my previous post, this is factually incorrect. EPA has to obey all parts of the Administrative Procedures Act regarding Agency rulemaking. They must provide a justification for the proposed rule and provide ample time for interested parties to comment. When they publish the final rule they must address all the received comments in going forward with the rule. It's also not uncommon for there to be changes in the final rule based on comments received. The same thing goes when they are changing an existing rule and this is where the Pruitt EPA is in a boatload of trouble.
Certainly the EPA can use cost to the economy as one of the standards when making a decision. If they can't then the law should be changed to allow them to do that. After all, everything costs. Cutting back on car emissions may be prudent at face value. But if it damages the auto industry by going to far and jobs are lost, the EPA could or should be able to use that information to decide how far to go. I believe they can and do that now. Maybe we should spend the money on more cancer research rather than more miles per gallon. Shouldn't elected officials be responsive to such concerns?
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/06/these-photos-of-the-district-under-water-illustrate-our-future-with-sea-level-rise/?utm_term=.66ae0c8bacf3&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1
Some great photos of Washington DC after the recent rain storms that dumped over 10 inches of rain.
-
Certainly the EPA can use cost to the economy as one of the standards when making a decision. If they can't then the law should be changed to allow them to do that. After all, everything costs. Cutting back on car emissions may be prudent at face value. But if it damages the auto industry by going to far and jobs are lost, the EPA could or should be able to use that information to decide how far to go. I believe they can and do that now. Maybe we should spend the money on more cancer research rather than more miles per gallon. Shouldn't elected officials be responsive to such concerns?
Some of it is dependent on the particular statute that is used by EPA for regulation. For example they absolutely have to do a cost/benefit analysis in the regulation of pesticides that takes the impact on not using the pesticide on agricultural output. The difficulty is that there are a variety of different statues all with different mandates for EPA. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are a joke. This is one area that I think the economics of a gas tax ought to be used. We have not raise gas taxes to keep up with inflation and there is not enough to pay for the necessary road/bridge repair these days. If gas taxes were to rise in keeping with inflation, car buyers would examine the economics and make their own decision on whether to by a small or big car.
-
Some of it is dependent on the particular statute that is used by EPA for regulation. For example they absolutely have to do a cost/benefit analysis in the regulation of pesticides that takes the impact on not using the pesticide on agricultural output. The difficulty is that there are a variety of different statues all with different mandates for EPA. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are a joke. This is one area that I think the economics of a gas tax ought to be used. We have not raise gas taxes to keep up with inflation and there is not enough to pay for the necessary road/bridge repair these days. If gas taxes were to rise in keeping with inflation, car buyers would examine the economics and make their own decision on whether to by a small or big car.
Your original post made it seem that as long as climate change was really, that's all was necessary to institute new regulations. So now you're acknowledging that the EPA can and must use other criteria like cost-benefit analysis regarding climate change issues? They don't only have to institute regulations just because the climate is changing and even if it was damaging the environment? They have to incorporate these other criteria? So the argument of whether Pruitt is right or wrong about climate change is moot.
This is why I feel the EPA, Trump and Pruitt are making a mistake. Instead of arguing that climate change is not real and being caused by humans, they should address the issue on the pros and cons of the costs to implement any changes and the unfairness in the Paris Agreement allowing China and India to do nothing. They should point to how even Europe is not meeting it's Paris promises. They are never going to convince the majority of people who believe something is going on. But they could convince people who believe climate change is real that the cost benefit and fairness to America to implement changes are not worthy to do. That's a better argument then "nyah, nyahing" whether it's even real.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/06/these-photos-of-the-district-under-water-illustrate-our-future-with-sea-level-rise/?utm_term=.66ae0c8bacf3&wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1
Some great photos of Washington DC after the recent rain storms that dumped over 10 inches of rain.
Maybe the flood will clean out the stench that's in Washington DC. Nice shots. I like the guy fly fishing in the flooded mall.
-
Your original post made it seem that as long as climate change was really, that's all was necessary to institute new regulations. So now you're acknowledging that the EPA can and must use other criteria like cost-benefit analysis regarding climate change issues? They don't only have to institute regulations just because the climate is changing and even if it was damaging the environment? They have to incorporate these other criteria? So the argument of whether Pruitt is right or wrong about climate change is moot.
The reason it is complicated is because of the different statutes. I think some of the coal fired plant regulations are under the Clean Water Act (acid rain) and some under the Clean Air Act (particulate matter). There is not a specific statute for regulating climate change.
This is why I feel the EPA, Trump and Pruitt are making a mistake. Instead of arguing that climate change is not real and being caused by humans, they should address the issue on the pros and cons of the costs to implement any changes and the unfairness in the Paris Agreement allowing China and India to do nothing. They should point to how even Europe is not meeting it's Paris promises. They are never going to convince the majority of people who believe something is going on. But they could convince people who believe climate change is real that the cost benefit and fairness to America to implement changes are not worthy to do. That's a better argument then "nyah, nyahing" whether it's even real.
That would mean arguing based on science and neither Pruitt or Trump want to do that.
-
...
That would mean arguing based on science and neither Pruitt or Trump want to do that.
Not science. Economics. That's something most people don't even discuss when it comes to climate change. How much? How should it be spent? Where's the money coming from? What other important programs would have to be cancelled because there's only so much money to go around? ($900 billion deficit this year more than a trillion next year).
Whenever I think I need something personally, I often change my mind when I consider the costs. We should be doing that in public policy as well.
-
I read through all that was said about the Pruitt situation and not one you guys mentioned the Freedom Of Information Act that was used by the plaintiff to sue the EPA. It's a brilliant strategy and might just get Pruitt to keep his mouth shut from here on out. I'm just concerned the current administration might abolish the act seeing how much work Pruitt claims will be involved in providing those documents.
As I understood the article any government official makes the claims Pruitt has said about not finding enough consistent scientific consensus and evidence to support Global Climate Change then there has to be documents to support such claims and Pruitt must provide them under the FIOA.
Maybe this will teach Pruitt to carefully choose his words when it involves questioning scientific evidence provided by his own scientists.
Here's George Carlins take on worrying about the environment I found quite funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj2KZGwubq8&t=
-
Not science. Economics. That's something most people don't even discuss when it comes to climate change. How much?
I've pointed out the risks of having to spend more on repairs than would be needed to partially prevent or prepare for the increasing costs.
Here's another take on it.
"Researchers predict economic downturn if fossil fuel investment goes unchecked
Low-carbon technology could get fossil fuel producers' assets "stranded.""
"An economic downturn on the level of the 2008 recession is coming if we keep investing in fossil fuels, researchers say. If fossil fuel-producing countries like the US, Canada, and Russia don't guide their economies away from oil, gas, and coal, then low-carbon technology could render at least some of those investments worthless. According to a paper in Nature Climate Change, approximately $1 trillion to $4 trillion could be lost from the global economy, even taking into account the fact that the Trump administration has hit the brakes on a lot of climate change policy in the US."
And guess who's going to pick up the tab for that? YOU!
So hiding behind the cost is only an excuse for inaction by deniers.
Realists understand that the cost will only go up further the longer action is postponed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... And guess who's going to pick up the tab for that? YOU!l..
ME!? I am already trembling in fear because “a paper” and “researchers” predicted doom and gloom.
-
I recall that Al Gore said that the polar ice caps could melt by 2014, not that they will. The cold and warm spots are constantly shifting. In Greenland, the great melt is on.
The decline of Greenland's ice sheet is a familiar story, but until recently, massive calving glaciers that carry ice from the interior and crumble into the sea got most of the attention. Between 2000 and 2008, such "dynamic" changes accounted for about as much mass loss as surface melting and shifts in snowfall. But the balance tipped dramatically between 2011 and 2014, when satellite data and modeling suggested that 70% of the annual 269 billion tons of snow and ice shed by Greenland was lost through surface melt, not calving. The accelerating surface melt has doubled Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise since 1992–2011, to 0.74 mm per year. "Nobody expected the ice sheet to lose so much mass so quickly," says geophysicist Isabella Velicogna of the University of California, Irvine. "Things are happening a lot faster than we expected."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown
-
I recall that Al Gore said that the polar ice caps could melt by 2014, not that they will...
I could become a millionaire in a few years, not that I will ;)
-
Ikea just announced that by 2030, all their products will only consist of renewable and recycled raw materials. That's in addition to their 52 solar projects just in USA with a total generation of more than 42 MW. Their latest store in Wisconsin boasts one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the state. The new solar array consists of a 1.63 MW system and is built with 4,716 panels. It will produce approximately 2,046,000 kWh of electricity annually for the store, which is equivalent to reducing 1,678 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the emissions of 326 cars or providing electricity for 228 homes yearly.
-
Further about doom and gloom peddlers and their strategies (bold mine):
Donald Trump won the popular vote among people 45 years and older. Many in these ranks have followed grass roots environmentalism since it began, following publication of Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," in 1962. Over time they've learned that celebrated environmental experts make false and wildly exaggerated predictions. A prime example is Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, a longtime environmental icon and author of the 1968 book "The Population Bomb."
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Ehrlich confidently predicted in a 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years."
He assured readers of The Progressive in 1970 that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."
If the environmental movement's so-called experts had been correct, nearly all animal species would be extinct today, as S. Dillon Ripley, longtime head of the Smithsonian Institution, predicted. As Nigel Calder and Kenneth Watt had it, the Earth would likely be in another ice age today. According to geochemist Harrison Brown, copper, lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would now be gone. Likewise, Watt and U.S. government analysts predicted that U.S. oil and natural gas reserves would be depleted by now. Instead, we're drowning in the stuff.
The late Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989, "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Source of the above: https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-inconvenient-truth-about-al-gore-and-the-climate-experts/
-
I could become a millionaire in a few years, not that I will ;)
As mentioned above, things are changing quickly, you just have to change the location. Right now, Venezuela is the country with the most millionaires.
-
Right. Last time people were that wealthy they were living in the Weimar Republic.
-
Damn! I just remembered! I WAS not a millionaire, but a billionaire once!
-
I read through all that was said about the Pruitt situation and not one you guys mentioned the Freedom Of Information Act that was used by the plaintiff to sue the EPA. It's a brilliant strategy and might just get Pruitt to keep his mouth shut from here on out. I'm just concerned the current administration might abolish the act seeing how much work Pruitt claims will be involved in providing those documents.
As I understood the article any government official makes the claims Pruitt has said about not finding enough consistent scientific consensus and evidence to support Global Climate Change then there has to be documents to support such claims and Pruitt must provide them under the FIOA.
Maybe this will teach Pruitt to carefully choose his words when it involves questioning scientific evidence provided by his own scientists.
Here's George Carlins take on worrying about the environment I found quite funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj2KZGwubq8&t=
Tim, We did discuss FOIA in previous posts. I had two reasons why I didn't think it was enforceable or adviseable. First, Pruitt gave a public opinion on TV. His statement was not official EPA policy any more than Trump's tweets are official US policy. Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC? On the other hand, when the EPA changes official procedures that effect people in real life, then people can sue the EPA. Then, the EPA would have to furnish papers to the courts supporting rule changes. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable now to use FOIA to request any information regarding rules and policies. But an official shouldn't have to support his personal statements every time he says what's on his mind. That's turning FOIA into a political game of "gotcha".
Second, you don't want to use FOIA to force politicians or government officials to support their public opinions. Pretty soon, they will stop talking to newspapers, TV stations, etc about what they think to avoid nuisance FOIA requests. Democracy will suffer because we will know less about what our government is thinking and doing, not more. The proper approach is to have other people who have differing views express their views publicly. That way the public is informed of the contrarian views on a particular issue and we can believe what we want to believe.
Enjoyed that Carlin link. Miss him.
-
We may all need this (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/tin-foil-hats-actually-make-it-easier-for-the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/) in the future.
Or this:
-
Ikea just announced that by 2030, all their products will only consist of renewable and recycled raw materials. That's in addition to their 52 solar projects just in USA with a total generation of more than 42 MW. Their latest store in Wisconsin boasts one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the state. The new solar array consists of a 1.63 MW system and is built with 4,716 panels. It will produce approximately 2,046,000 kWh of electricity annually for the store, which is equivalent to reducing 1,678 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the emissions of 326 cars or providing electricity for 228 homes yearly.
Walmart has been installing solar panels on their stores throughout the US.
-
Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC?
FOIA only applies to official actions of government agencies, it does not apply to Congress. https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
-
FOIA only applies to official actions of government agencies, it does not apply to Congress. https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
You missed or deliberately ignored my point and the whole discussion regarding FOIA.
-
You missed or deliberately ignored my point and the whole discussion regarding FOIA.
No I didn't. I just pointed to the FAQ page. As a point of fact I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I just wanted to add some clarification! Only official Agency activities are subject to FOIA. Any speech or public appearance is not. Meetings with representatives of the regulated industry and various affected public citizens are.
-
Tim, We did discuss FOIA in previous posts. I had two reasons why I didn't think it was enforceable or adviseable. First, Pruitt gave a public opinion on TV. His statement was not official EPA policy any more than Trump's tweets are official US policy. Are we going to force every congressman, senator, president and government official to produce records to support what's on their minds or what they say on FOX or MSNBC? On the other hand, when the EPA changes official procedures that effect people in real life, then people can sue the EPA. Then, the EPA would have to furnish papers to the courts supporting rule changes. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable now to use FOIA to request any information regarding rules and policies. But an official shouldn't have to support his personal statements every time he says what's on his mind. That's turning FOIA into a political game of "gotcha".
Second, you don't want to use FOIA to force politicians or government officials to support their public opinions. Pretty soon, they will stop talking to newspapers, TV stations, etc about what they think to avoid nuisance FOIA requests. Democracy will suffer because we will know less about what our government is thinking and doing, not more. The proper approach is to have other people who have differing views express their views publicly. That way the public is informed of the contrarian views on a particular issue and we can believe what we want to believe.
Enjoyed that Carlin link. Miss him.
I agree with your statements though I didn't know that much about how FOIA is implemented. It's used locally here in my town quite a bit in getting info hidden behind closed door dealings with contracts and public meetings between developers and city regulatory departments. I understand it's importance in speaking truth to power and in helping those become citizen scientists/investigators.
I just liked the fact the plaintiffs used FOIA as a strategy to get Pruitt's attention on what appears to be a misguided agenda with the EPA.
My favorite point and perspective made by Carlin is his view on endangered species protection in comparison to whether we're next. We're just a rash on this planet compared to the billions of years of its existence. We seem to have no concept or perspective on the amount of time it takes to fix big world problems when we are selves only existed around 100,000 years.
And in that time we still can't feed all the poor, but we certainly believe we can control the weather on a molecular level.
Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.
-
.Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.
+100
-
Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.
No sensible person could disagree with that. The problem is with the definition of pollution.
When large numbers of people, and government agencies, seem to believe that a clear and odorless gas called Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life, is actually a pollutant, then we have a problem.
Misidentifying or mischaracterizing a substance can be disastrous. There are many problems that mankind faces, unrelated to small increases in the atmospheric levels of CO2. Addressing those problems not only requires sensible and practical policies, at both an individual level and a governmental level, but also cheap and affordable energy.
The shift towards renewables increases the basic, unsubsidised cost of energy, which makes it more difficult to address problems of the infrastructure which is historically vulnerable to floods and storms, build flood-mitigation dams, desalination plants, tow icebergs from the Antarctic to dry areas in Australia, raise highways above previous floods levels, strengthen houses against the force of previous storms, and so on.
The cost of energy is at the core of all human activity in a modern civilization. The price of energy has been steadily increasing in Australia during the past few decades, as a result of a shift towards renewables. There are reports in the Australian media that many poor people cannot afford to heat their homes during the current winter, because of rising electricity prices, which are forecast to continue rising as a result of the closure of coal-fired power plants.
It's a very sad and rather stupid situation. :(
-
When large numbers of people, and government agencies, seem to believe that a clear and odorless gas called Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life, is actually a pollutant, then we have a problem.
You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant. Are you putting words in people's mouths?
The concern about climate change is that human action is causing an imbalance in atmospheric gases. That we may also be putting chemicals in the environment that don't belong there and that harms life (including ours) is a different (but related) issue.
-
No I didn't. I just pointed to the FAQ page. As a point of fact I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I just wanted to add some clarification! Only official Agency activities are subject to FOIA. Any speech or public appearance is not. Meetings with representatives of the regulated industry and various affected public citizens are.
I'm sorry I was tough on you. Thanks for the clarification. So your point raises a question. Why did the judge do what he did if Pruitt was only making a public appearance? The judge should be overturned on appeal. FOIA requests for those purposes the judge agreed too are not allowed.
-
You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant... The concern about climate change is that human action is causing an imbalance in atmospheric gases...
Potato, potahto.
-
Walmart has been installing solar panels on their stores throughout the US.
It looks like the things are moving in the right direction - Ikea, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, Target. All these corporations combined and many other smaller companies, it really adds up. On my last trip to Florida, I saw many more solar roof panels on all kinds of buildings than in the years before. If they generate and sell back excess electricity to the power grid, that would reduce appreciably amount of coal used by electric utilities.
Also many new opportunities for architectural photographers.
-
I agree with your statements though I didn't know that much about how FOIA is implemented. It's used locally here in my town quite a bit in getting info hidden behind closed door dealings with contracts and public meetings between developers and city regulatory departments. I understand it's importance in speaking truth to power and in helping those become citizen scientists/investigators.
I just liked the fact the plaintiffs used FOIA as a strategy to get Pruitt's attention on what appears to be a misguided agenda with the EPA.
My favorite point and perspective made by Carlin is his view on endangered species protection in comparison to whether we're next. We're just a rash on this planet compared to the billions of years of its existence. We seem to have no concept or perspective on the amount of time it takes to fix big world problems when we are selves only existed around 100,000 years.
And in that time we still can't feed all the poor, but we certainly believe we can control the weather on a molecular level.
Carlin made it simple...Don't pollute the land, air and water and we'll make out just fine.
One current appropos "joke" Carlin made on that link was his comment how people in Hawaii build homes next to a volvano and then are surprised when they find lava in their living rooms. So here we are years after his "joke" facing that very problem. I see it here in New Jersey with people re-buidling after Hurricane Sandy wiped out their homes on the Jersey shore. Some of them at least are re-building on stilts. But the whole thing is kinda silly because we know there's a storm coming that will be worse. Stilts aren't going to do the job.
None of us want dirty water to drink or air to breathe. We all want to be safe from the quirks of nature, whether man-made or natural. But we are part of nature just as much as beavers for example who change major portions of the environment with their dams. We have to live too. And our actions do effect the earth. There's no way around that. Trying to be good stewards of the environment yet take care of ourselves and family are hard to balance at times.
For example, who am I to say the people on the Jersey shore are crazy, stupid and environmentally insensitive. Well, I live 12 miles inland at an elevation of 160 feet, immune to high tides and storm surges. So it's easy for me to point my finger. Meanwhile, those are their homes. Would I give up my home? Why should I expect them to give up theirs? Do you tell a poor person he can;t use carbon based fuels to heat his home when he can't afford to install let's say solar. Should his family freeze because other richer people would deny him oil? Should we spend trillions over the next 50 years trying to help people living in low lying areas. Or let them move so we can use the funds for other things like cancer research and feeding the poor? The whole argument about climate change is whether it is or isn't. We seem to be rather short-sighted. We should be discussing these other factors but somehow we're stuck with the validity issue.
-
Tim, I wasn't directing my last post to you. Just spouting off in general.
-
It looks like the things are moving in the right direction - Ikea, Walmart, Apple, Amazon, Target. All these corporations combined and many other smaller companies, it really adds up. On my last trip to Florida, I saw many more solar roof panels on all kinds of buildings than in the years before. If they generate and sell back excess electricity to the power grid, that would reduce appreciably amount of coal used by electric utilities.
Also many new opportunities for architectural photographers.
Walmart's commitment: "Walmart’s commitment to solar energy is nearly a decade old — a decision we made for many reasons. For one, using the power of the sun and installing solar panels lowers our energy costs and is clearly good for the environment, but another benefit is that it keeps prices low for our customers."
You can be sure their accountants have messaged the numbers and see a savings for them. It all comes down to making more money.
https://blog.walmart.com/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar
-
One note about Walmart. They're in a rare situation. Their super-sized, one-story, big-box stores have huge, flat roofs for simple solar panel installation. They're equal in area to the sales store itself below the roof allowing them to provide all the store's electricity requirements. They need no new real estate for solar farms. They can easily tie into their electric distribution in the building. Most businesses would have much more costly installations or not be able to do it at all regardless of cost.
In addition, they already have in their sales department snow shovels, brooms, and solvents to keep the panels clean. :)
-
Walmart's commitment: "Walmart’s commitment to solar energy is nearly a decade old — a decision we made for many reasons. For one, using the power of the sun and installing solar panels lowers our energy costs and is clearly good for the environment, but another benefit is that it keeps prices low for our customers."
You can be sure their accountants have messaged the numbers and see a savings for them. It all comes down to making more money.
https://blog.walmart.com/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar
There are quite a few other examples where the adoption of new clean technologies or alternative methods resulted in a more productive operation. From the water consumption digital remote readers through optical voting scanners to picking robots in Amazon warehouses.
And not only in the dirty industries. According to the latest news, some 70 percent of women with early-stage breast cancer and an intermediate risk of cancer recurrence can now safely skip chemotherapy after their tumors have been removed. Good for patients, and tremendous savings in insurance costs and doctor's times.
-
Yes.
On reflection, I understand your point. Best to hear what the fools actually think.
-
Potato, potahto.
I know that you understand the difference between lead in the air or mercury in the fish, and changes in levels of CO2. Stop trolling, it's undignified.
-
You know, I am not aware of anyone (credible) calling CO2 a pollutant. Are you putting words in people's mouths?
Really! I suppose we now have to get into the definition of 'credible'. ;)
I used to accept the alarm about the potentially disastrous consequences of rising CO2 levels, until I began investigating the issue for myself, in search of what I considered to be relevant facts which were never or rarely mentioned in the media, such as the actual pH of the oceans, and the significant, natural variabilility of the pH of the oceans, and the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the existence of previous warm periods which were generally beneficial for past civilizations, and so on.
A few years ago in Australia, we had a Labour Government which attempted to introduce a carbon tax. They called the legislation the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Fortunately, the legislation was blocked.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/respect-the-science-and-dont-call-co2-a-pollutant/news-story/f57a6e32001efc9328826eb903f89329?sv=98508ccab5c8bdcc51a4339a998be3a4
"WHY do we allow our political leaders and the commentariat to refer to carbon dioxide as a pollutant instead of a greenhouse gas?
Some time ago, politicians or their advisers decided a clever way to frame the climate change debate was to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant: hence the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme."
Even the National Geographic magazines has described CO2 as a pollutant.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution/
"THE LEADING POLLUTANT
Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. In the past 150 years, such activities have pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise its levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years."
And here's another more rational and detailed article on the issue.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=journal_articles
"Pollutants must be registered under the CAA, and there has been a huge dispute-which I shall explain later on-about whether or not carbon dioxide should be registered as such under the Act. After much internal debate, the Bush Administration said no. The states, led by Massachusetts, thought that the answer ought to have been yes. They forced the issue to the Supreme Court, which held in Massachusetts v. EPA3 that, although the EPA was not necessarily bound to make that "endangerment" determination, it was nonetheless authorized to do so because carbon dioxide fell within the CAA's definition of an "air pollutant." Under the CAA, an "air pollutant" is "any physical [or] chemical ... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."
Currently, all we can say with confidence is that some amount of carbon dioxide is too much, some amount is perfectly safe, and some too little. But just how does any one, either separately or collectively, decide exactly where to draw the line that separates these three categories?
-
... Stop trolling, it's undignified.
Stop personal attacks, it devalues your position.
-
More about the ticks moving northwards.
It looks like Lyme disease isn’t the only thing Canadians need to worry about contracting from ticks. A bite from the Lone Star tick can trigger an allergy to red meat, and the tiny bug is making its way into Canada. For decades, scientists kept a watchful eye over the Lone Star tick and its potent bite. The tick that’s widespread in the East, Southeast and Midwest United States got its nickname from the small white “star” that’s on the back of the female bugs. In the past few months, the tick – and its victims with newfound meat allergies – have cropped up not just in the Midwest and southern states, but farther north into Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3556940/lone-star-ticks-that-cause-red-meat-allergies-are-on-their-way-to-canada/
-
More about the ticks moving northwards.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3556940/lone-star-ticks-that-cause-red-meat-allergies-are-on-their-way-to-canada/
Yes, these are worrisome developments, thanks to global warming.
We see similar things in my country, where e.g. the aggressive Asian Tiger Mosquitoes (which carries dengue and chikungunya fever) have been spotted at latitudes (52 N) similar to the USA/Canada border. Here's a picture of what to expect in Europe:
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/suitability-of-the-establishment-of/cci148_map2-10.eps/CCI148_Map2.10.eps.75dpi.png)
Aggressive Asian tiger mosquito invades Europe:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708019/
But that's just one of the many unwanted effects of global warming. There are also other effects that will have very costly consequences.
"Hurricanes are moving more slowly than they used to
Record shows a trend that could mean higher storm rainfall totals."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/hurricanes-are-moving-more-slowly-than-they-used-to/
While the connection between the slower speed of these weather systems is not necessarily directly linked to global warming, yet (!), the larger amounts of precipitation are a result of the warmer air, and the combination predicts trouble for the affected regions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, I read about the slower moving hurricanes with a lot of rain. Most likely, that will affect mainly the southern and eastern parts of USA.
In Canada, just this past weekend, we witnessed a brief instance of the hurricane Trump. Although this violent event didn't last long, it created a lot of chaos and as it was leaving Canada, it blew up unexpectedly among other things even the G7 meeting. Some observers stated that this time the origin of this disaster could have been as far as in Russia.
-
"Skeeters and rainstorms and Trumps, Oh my!" "Skeeters and rainstorms and Trumps, Oh my!" Sounds like Dorothy and her three buddies on their way to see the wizard.
-
Yes, I read about the slower moving hurricanes with a lot of rain. Most likely, that will affect mainly the southern and eastern parts of USA.
We'll see what this Atlantic Hurricane season brings, although climate looks at longer-term trends.
South-East Asia also gets it share of tropical cyclones.
In Canada, just this past weekend, we witnessed a brief instance of the hurricane Trump. Although this violent event didn't last long, it created a lot of chaos and as it was leaving Canada, it blew up unexpectedly among other things even the G7 meeting. Some observers stated that this time the origin of this disaster could have been as far as in Russia.
LOL, lots of hot air indeed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Skeeters and rainstorms and Trumps, Oh my!" "Skeeters and rainstorms and Trumps, Oh my!" Sounds like Dorothy and her three buddies on their way to see the wizard.
We’ll see how flippant you are when you contract dengue fever, Russ. I had it in Asia, and it ain’t pretty.
-
I don't doubt that this mosquito will extend it's range if it continues to warm up. But, how many older people won't die because older people die more in severe winters. Moderating winters will help not only help deer ticks and mosquitoes live longer and expand their range, but also deer, white footed mice and humans. The point is that climate change has good and bad effects. Humans in particular have always done better in warmer weather. In fact if it wasn't for clothes that modern man has developed, we wouldn't even be living in those areas that were also not good for the mosquito.
-
My kind of fever:
-
My kind of fever:
Hopefully, not as deadly as the other kind.
http://ypradio.org/post/yellow-fever-encroaches-megacities-straining-global-vaccine-supply#stream/0
-
I don't doubt that this mosquito will extend it's range if it continues to warm up. But, how many older people won't die because older people die more in severe winters. Moderating winters will help not only help deer ticks and mosquitoes live longer and expand their range, but also deer, white footed mice and humans. The point is that climate change has good and bad effects. Humans in particular have always done better in warmer weather. In fact if it wasn't for clothes that modern man has developed, we wouldn't even be living in those areas that were also not good for the mosquito.
Absolutely right, something good always comes from something bad. In case of the Lone Star tick and red meat allergy, this could lead to a reduced read meat consumption and also to reduced cow population.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/tick-bite-meat-allergy-spreading-spd/
-
We’ll see how flippant you are when you contract dengue fever, Russ. I had it in Asia, and it ain’t pretty.
Dengue fever was a problem at Ubon in Thailand when I was there, Peter. There had been a mass outbreak shortly before I arrived and I know it ain't pretty. I was lucky enough to have it pass me by. But you're making some pretty far-ranging assumptions about the spread of the stuff. Or at least you're accepting the word of those making far-ranging assumptions.
-
I don't doubt that this mosquito will extend it's range if it continues to warm up. But, how many older people won't die because older people die more in severe winters.
Time to put this simplistic idea to the test with some science and rational thought ...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty
"Weather seems to be a minor factor in explaining these deaths. Across Europe, England and Wales have some of the highest rates of excess mortality in winter months. All Nordic countries have far lower winter mortality rates, despite much harsher weather. Norway’s rate is a quarter that of England and Wales, while Finland reports no difference in mortality rates between the summer and winter months. In contrast, Spanish and Portuguese climates are milder than Britain’s, yet excess winter deaths are far higher."
"Of course, fuel poverty isn’t the only reason for excess winter deaths. The main problem with these statistics is that the measure itself is simplistic. The myriad factors that exacerbate illness, vulnerability or susceptibility aren’t collated. Inequality levels, access to hospitals and social care, loneliness and poverty worsen physical and mental health, and increase people’s vulnerability to dying during the winter months."
And there is this more in depth source:
"What causes excess winter mortality?"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2016to2017provisionaland2015to2016final#what-causes-excess-winter-mortality
A couple of degrees milder winters is not the solution, but hey, some people seem to prefer to die from tropical decease, than to isolate their house better, wear more suitable clothing, and save on heating expense ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not only people, even other mammals can suffer during unseasonally cold winters. Surprisingly, also in subtropical regions.
This year’s cold snap in January killed 35 of Florida’s manatees - five times as many as last January.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article198194079.html
-
Not only people, even other mammals can suffer during unseasonally cold winters. Surprisingly, also in subtropical regions.
This year’s cold snap in January killed 35 of Florida’s manatees - five times as many as last January.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article198194079.html
You're articles of signs of global cooling will upset Bart. Stop it. :)
-
Time to put this simplistic idea to the test with some science and rational thought ...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/20/older-person-dying-winter-fuel-poverty
"Weather seems to be a minor factor in explaining these deaths. Across Europe, England and Wales have some of the highest rates of excess mortality in winter months. All Nordic countries have far lower winter mortality rates, despite much harsher weather. Norway’s rate is a quarter that of England and Wales, while Finland reports no difference in mortality rates between the summer and winter months. In contrast, Spanish and Portuguese climates are milder than Britain’s, yet excess winter deaths are far higher."
"Of course, fuel poverty isn’t the only reason for excess winter deaths. The main problem with these statistics is that the measure itself is simplistic. The myriad factors that exacerbate illness, vulnerability or susceptibility aren’t collated. Inequality levels, access to hospitals and social care, loneliness and poverty worsen physical and mental health, and increase people’s vulnerability to dying during the winter months."
And there is this more in depth source:
"What causes excess winter mortality?"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2016to2017provisionaland2015to2016final#what-causes-excess-winter-mortality
A couple of degrees milder winters is not the solution, but hey, some people seem to prefer to die from tropical decease, than to isolate their house better, wear more suitable clothing, and save on heating expense ...
Cheers,
Bart
Warmer winters will also reduce the amount of carbon fuel needed to heat homes. Less schmutz and less CO2. You'll be able to open your windows and breathe clean, cooler air. Double winner.
In any case, I can't imagine Americans or Europeans thinking, "Gee, I better not open my windows. I might get dengue fever."
There are other advantages. A couple of degrees warmer during the winter means the roads freeze up less often. The reduced amount of automobile deaths and injuries has to be considerable worldwide. The point is everyone is cherry picking outcomes to fit their political stance. The media never discusses the positives causing people like me to feel there whole thing is biased. If you want people to get on board with climate change incentives, present all the evidence in a fair and unbiased way. Then maybe you'll get more converts.
In the meanwhile, less and less people are caring about climate change nor will governments spend real money on it, just enough to make them look politically acceptable. No one's discussing global warming in America since Trump pulled out of Paris except the few who still have a fever about it (no pun intended).
-
Time to put this simplistic idea to the test with some science and rational thought ...
...
A couple of degrees milder winters is not the solution, but hey, some people seem to prefer to die from tropical decease, than to isolate their house better, wear more suitable clothing, and save on heating expense ...
Yes, indeed, some people seem to prefer to have less money than other people. Sheesh! Seriously, Bart!?
The underlying logic in the stats and statements that you quoted is so far from a rational thought that it is mind boggling!
Southern European countries have a higher rate of winter deaths than northern ones!? And that is a proof that it is not low-temperature related? Really!? Who would have thought? Harsh winters are the norm in the north, and an aberration in the south. When something is the norm, you prepare for it. When I was living in Barcelona, a vast number of older apartments did not have any heating provisions. The same with some houses here in Florida.
All other factors but temperature are irrelevant. Loneliness, social safety net, inequality, etc. are the same all year long. However, unexpected, unprepared-for lower temperatures make poverty and illness harder to survive.
-
Southern European countries have a higher rate of winter deaths than northern ones!? And that is a proof that it is not low-temperature related? Really!?
You disappoint me with another strawman's argument, Slobodan. All that it shows is that Alan's premise is false. Temperature alone is not sufficient to explain the Excessive Winter Mortality (EWM). So higher temperatures are not the solution either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather
Date:May 20, 2015
Source:The Lancet
Summary:Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm)
-
Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather
Date:May 20, 2015
Source:The Lancet
Summary:Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm)
And not a word about Influenza, to name only one variable of many in explaining/understanding the number of people who die during colder weather.
Correlation does not imply causation.
They do not only die more often because it's colder (older people die more often anyway ...), but maybe they also have reduced resistance due to lack of healthy food, lack of exposure to daylight, are relatively sensitive to respiratory issues combined with dry air, or have cardiovascular problems and difficulties in regulating the body heat temperature, the list goes on?
That's why one should not look at mortality alone, but in particular look at Excess Winter Mortality, and its multiple possible causes. Cold alone does not seem to be an adequate explanation, especially given that Scandinavian people have much lower EWM rates.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And not a word about Influenza, to name only one variable of many in explaining/understanding the number of people who die during colder weather.
Correlation does not imply causation.
They do not only die more often because it's colder (older people die more often anyway ...), but maybe they also have reduced resistance due to lack of healthy food, lack of exposure to daylight, are relatively sensitive to respiratory issues combined with dry air, or have cardiovascular problems and difficulties in regulating the body heat temperature, the list goes on?
That's why one should not look at mortality alone, but in particular look at Excess Winter Mortality, and its multiple possible causes. Cold alone does not seem to be an adequate explanation, especially given that Scandinavian people have much lower EWM rates.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart. The international study analyzed over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. Most people don't live in the climes of Scandinavia where the people may have genetically grown impervious to the colder weather. I suppose arctic foxes don't have these problems either. But most people live in more temperature areas and are more negatively effected by the cold rather than the heat.
In addition, you arguing supports the points that warmer air means less deaths. You said about it being colder, "...reduced resistance due to lack of healthy food, lack of exposure to daylight, are relatively sensitive to respiratory issues combined with dry air, or have cardiovascular problems and difficulties in regulating the body heat temperature..."
Most of these situations that cause deaths would be reduced if the temperature was warmer. Heathy food would be more abundant due to longer and bigger food crops. Dry air and subsequent respiratory issues would be reduced as warmer air holds more water vapor than drier air which is why people use humidifiers in the winter. Also, cardio problems and other bodily issues are reduced if it's warmer. Your argument does not refute the article's point. Actually it supports it.
-
Bart. The international study analyzed over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. Most people don't live in the climes of Scandinavia where the people may have genetically grown impervious to the colder weather. I suppose arctic foxes don't have these problems either. But most people live in more temperature areas and are more negatively effected by the cold rather than the heat.
More unfounded assumptions. I'm too lazy to look up the heat-related Excessive Mortality figures, so feel free to do that yourself.
Besides, you're missing the point. Correlation does not imply causation. It's not necessarily the temperature alone.
Cheers,
Bart
-
More unfounded assumptions. I'm too lazy to look up the heat-related Excessive Mortality figures, so feel free to do that yourself.
Besides, you're missing the point. Correlation does not imply causation. It's not necessarily the temperature alone.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm basically on your side, as all sane people are, but I have to interject that correlation DOES imply causation, it just doesn't prove or demonstrate it. But one of the first things you do when looking for a cause of a particular effect is to look for correlations; the cause may well be found among them. In fact how else would you search for a cause? Wander around randomly knocking on tree trunks and shouting at clouds? :-)
-
More unfounded assumptions. I'm too lazy to look up the heat-related Excessive Mortality figures, so feel free to do that yourself.
Besides, you're missing the point. Correlation does not imply causation. It's not necessarily the temperature alone.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, it was you who claimed they could be dying from, quote: "reduced resistance due to lack of healthy food, lack of exposure to daylight, are relatively sensitive to respiratory issues combined with dry air, or have cardiovascular problems and difficulties in regulating the body heat temperature, the list goes on?…"
These problems are alleviated by warmer temperatures. So there is a correlation between warmer temperatures and the alleviation of these problems and deaths. So now you're taking back your original statement that supports the thesis. Now you're saying there's no causation while before you were claiming causation but with the opposite results. You can't have it both ways. It's this kind of thing that makes skeptics like myself question supporters of global warming and the negative results of such changes as being nothing more than a hyperbolic political position.
-
I'm basically on your side...
Please don't*, you are too intelligent for that :)
*at least in regard to the effects of cold weather on mortality.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/13/antarctic-ice-loss-has-tripled-in-a-decade-if-that-continues-we-are-in-serious-trouble/?utm_term=.9836644f1f74
-
These are staggering numbers - sea levels rising by 0.5mm per year, accelerating to 1 m in 50 years
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/13/antarctic-ice-loss-has-tripled-in-a-decade-if-that-continues-we-are-in-serious-trouble/?utm_term=.9836644f1f74
The scientists in the article say the Antarctica is melting enough ice and snow per year causing a rise of sea level of around half a millimeter per year. Which means that in 50 years, 25mm or around 1 inch of sea rise. Remind me to buy rubber boots in a few decades if I'm still alive.
I'm curious how much snow and ice were in the Antarctica between the last two ice ages?
-
These are staggering numbers - sea levels rising by 0.5mm per year, accelerating to 1 m in 50 years
Les, the scientists admitted that would require a tripling of melt every decade. They acknowledge having no proof even admitting that it won't continue at that rate. We all like to slow down when we pass road accidents and gawk. But let's not look for unproven, worse case scenarios. I do that every time I go to the doctor. So far, fortunately, my predictions have been too dire.
-
The scientists in the article say the Antarctica is melting enough ice and snow per year causing a rise of sea level of around half a millimeter per year. Which means that in 50 years, 25mm or around 1 inch of sea rise. Remind me to buy rubber boots in a few decades if I'm still alive.
I'm curious how much snow and ice were in the Antarctica between the last two ice ages?
Alan, many of these changes are not linear. There will be years with less melting, and years with more melting. And it's not only adding more water. As the masses of ice diminish, so it will the cooling effct, oceans will warm up, increase the water volume, and the sea levels will rise dramatically higher. The scientists estimate doubling of sea rise levels every decade. In worst case scenario they will triple each decade.
-
Les, the scientists admitted that would require a tripling of melt every decade. They acknowledge having no proof even admitting that it won't continue at that rate. We all like to slow down when we pass road accidents and gawk. But let's not look for unproven, worse case scenarios. I do that every time I go to the doctor. So far, fortunately, my predictions have been too dire.
1 m rise was based on doubling the melting every decade. Tripling of the melting would reach the 1 meter water level much quicker.
As to the comparison between the climate scientists and doctors, based on my personal observations I believe that the scientists' prognosis and recommendations are more reliable. They also read and write more.
-
Bart, it was you who claimed they could be dying from, quote: "reduced resistance due to lack of healthy food, lack of exposure to daylight, are relatively sensitive to respiratory issues combined with dry air, or have cardiovascular problems and difficulties in regulating the body heat temperature, the list goes on?…"
These problems are alleviated by warmer temperatures.
To spell it out more clearly, obviously there is some sort of a correlation with temperature, but it is not the temperature that is causing the Excess Winter Mortality. It is, amongst various other factors e.g. Influenza which thrives in conditions that people have reduced resistance and interact and stay indoors more, have an irritated respiratory tract (due to wrong heating practices), so Influenza can lead to additional pneumonia, housing that is inadequately insulated etc. that leads to that dry air (and additionally wastes a lot of heat) that kills a lot of extra people.
So in that specific case it's the influenza versus EWM correlation that explains the actual cause and effect. And a lot can be done to improve the situation without heating up the entire environment during the whole year round (which cause all sorts of even more unwanted effects, like pests, flooding, Droughts, social unrest, wars, and even more global warming).
As the Scandinavian example shows, fewer EWM cases can be achieved, and more effectively, without increasing global temperature warming with its ill side effects.
Besides, what effect do you think that a 3 degree Celsius global temperature rise by the end of the century has on Excess Winter Mortality? If any, it can be achieved much faster and more efficiently, and without the negative effects that global warming has, by learning from and doing what the Scandinavians do.
Cheers,
Bart
-
To spell it out more clearly, obviously there is some sort of a correlation with temperature, but it is not the temperature that is causing the Excess Winter Mortality. It is, amongst various other factors e.g. Influenza which thrives in conditions that people have reduced resistance and interact and stay indoors more, have an irritated respiratory tract (due to wrong heating practices), so Influenza can lead to additional pneumonia, housing that is inadequately insulated etc. that leads to that dry air (and additionally wastes a lot of heat) that kills a lot of extra people.
So in that specific case it's the influenza versus EWM correlation that explains the actual cause and effect. And a lot can be done to improve the situation without heating up the entire environment during the whole year round (which cause all sorts of even more unwanted effects, like pests, flooding, Droughts, social unrest, wars, and even more global warming).
As the Scandinavian example shows, fewer EWM cases can be achieved, and more effectively, without increasing global temperature warming with its ill side effects.
Besides, what effect do you think that a 3 degree Celsius global temperature rise by the end of the century has on Excess Winter Mortality? If any, it can be achieved much faster and more efficiently, and without the negative effects that global warming has, by learning from and doing what the Scandinavians do.
Cheers,
Bart
I suppose we can have our children marry Scandinavians so their children can better handle the weather. Sounds like more fun that installing solar panels. :)
-
I'm basically on your side, as all sane people are, but I have to interject that correlation DOES imply causation, it just doesn't prove or demonstrate it.
Hi John,
I agree that there seems to be 'some sort of correlation', but we could also say that a similar correlation is there with the average amount of daylight, i.e. shorter days. But as I tried to explain to Alan K., it's not that which causes the EWM rates. And it can be proven by comparing with the Scandinavians, who have even shorter days and lower average temperatures but also lower EWM rates.
So it makes no sense to raise temperatures as a 'solution', if it is not causing that problem.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi John,
I agree that there seems to be 'some sort of correlation', but we could also say that a similar correlation is there with the average amount of daylight, i.e. shorter days. But as I tried to explain to Alan K., it's not that which causes the EWM rates. And it can be proven by comparing with the Scandinavians, who have even shorter days and lower average temperatures but also lower EWM rates.
So it makes no sense to raise temperatures as a 'solution', if it is not causing that problem.
Cheers,
Bart
There's certainly more proof that warmer weather preserves more lives then warmer weather is caused by CO2.
Why do you keep pointing to Scandinavians? They've lived in the cold so long their genetic makeup has adapted to the colder weather over many generations. Just like their blue eyes and blonde hair. However, most people are not Scandinavian. They don't have time for DNA changes. So they just will live longer and do better if it warmed up a littler. If you don't believe me, ask a Canadian like Les what he thinks? :)
-
Most Canadians got shocked and irritated by the recent blow of hot air in Malbaie, Quebec over the last weekend. It blew in from south but fortunately didn't linger long enough in Canada.
-
Les, What about warmer weather in the winter?
-
Because I don't like playing chess with pigeons, I'll just post this here & not comment further -
"Ice in the Antarctic is melting at a record-breaking rate and the subsequent sea rises could have catastrophic consequences for cities around the world, according to two new studies.
A report led by scientists in the UK and US found the rate of melting from the Antarctic ice sheet has accelerated threefold in the last five years and is now vanishing faster than at any previously recorded time.
A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070. This could lead eventually to the collapse of the entire west Antarctic ice sheet, and around 3.5m of sea-level rise."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show
-
Les, What about warmer weather in the winter?
In Canada or Antarctica?
This winter was bitterly cold in Ontario. In January it got so cold, that after two days of freezing, I grabbed my shorts and a few sandwiches and drove to Florida. It took me another two days until I got to Georgia that I thawed out. Usually as I drive on the i77 straight south, the outside temperature sensor shows about every 100 miles about 1-2 degrees warmer air, but on that drive I was already in Virginia and it was still below zero (Fahrenheit). I drove from my home 1500km straight to Orangeburg, SC, and they still had a fresh dusting of snow on the ground.
It must have been 30C (86F) in Toronto today. About the same as in Miami. That could be the reason the Toronto Zoo decided to ship out a young polar bear to Winnipeg.
-
In Canada or Antarctica?
This winter was bitterly cold in Ontario. In January it got so cold, that after two days of freezing, I grabbed my shorts and a few sandwiches and drove to Florida. It took me another two days until I got to Georgia that I thawed out. Usually as I drive on the i77 straight south, the outside temperature sensor shows about every 100 miles about 1-2 degrees warmer air, but on that drive I was already in Virginia and it was still below zero (Fahrenheit). I drove from my home 1500km straight to Orangeburg, SC, and they still had a fresh dusting of snow on the ground.
It must have been 30C (86F) in Toronto today. About the same as in Miami. That could be the reason the Toronto Zoo decided to ship out a young polar bear to Winnipeg.
Something you just said that reminded me I was thinking about it a few months ago. But I forgot and never mentioned it here. And that's the fact that it's 1-2 degree warmer for every 100 miles you travel south. So if you lived in NYC and suddenly global warming increased average temperatures 2-4 degrees as if you lived in let's say North Carolina, people in NYC would adapt and there would be no harm done. You'd have to use more A/C but warmer winters would mean less oil or natural gas to heat. More importantly, we as humans would do just fine. We'd acclimate and adapt.
So if you applied the two degrees across the world, people would adapt as well there too. Why not the rest of nature? Why do we feel that birds, and cows, and trees, and ferns and polar bears and everything else won't adapt too? If New Yorkers can move to North Carolina and do well, why not everything else? After all, people 200 miles south of us are already experiencing global warming. We just have to wait a few decades to have the experience too.
-
Two degrees temperature difference can be tolerable in a certain range, and deadly in another range.
As mentioned somewhere else, on my Alaska trip some years ago I swam at the Chena Hot Springs in a small hot lake where normally the water temperature is kept around 106F (41C). They mix natural hot water intake (165F) with cold water from another spring. 106F can be tolerated for a brief wading in the lake, but they don't recommend swimming. On my second day there, their cold water pump didn't work, and the lake temperature reached about 110F (4 degrees difference in Fahrenheit and 2 degrees in Celsius). At that temperature the water was too hot just to enter the pool.
I operate best in a rather narrow temperature range. Somewhere between 18 and 25C.
-
Because I don't like playing chess with pigeons, I'll just post this here & not comment further -
"Ice in the Antarctic is melting at a record-breaking rate and the subsequent sea rises could have catastrophic consequences for cities around the world, according to two new studies.
A report led by scientists in the UK and US found the rate of melting from the Antarctic ice sheet has accelerated threefold in the last five years and is now vanishing faster than at any previously recorded time.
A separate study warns that unless urgent action is taken in the next decade the melting ice could contribute more than 25cm to a total global sea level rise of more than a metre by 2070. This could lead eventually to the collapse of the entire west Antarctic ice sheet, and around 3.5m of sea-level rise."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show
What "urgent action" can possibly be done? If CO2 is the culprit, it will continue to increase because the population is increasing. America pulled out of Paris and China and India do not have to start meeting any CO2 reductions until 2030. China (30%), America (14%) and India (7%) contribute about half the world's total CO2 emissions. Even Europe is not meeting their Paris commitments. Meanwhile, the population is expanding and the people want to use more carbon, not less, as they enter the middle classes more and more.
The idea that somehow, we are going to stop the glaciers, ice and snow from melting in the Antarctica is a pipe dream. Better off investing in a rubber boot factory.
-
Two degrees temperature difference can be tolerable in a certain range, and deadly in another range.
As mentioned somewhere else, on my Alaska trip some years ago I swam at the Chena Hot Springs in a small hot lake where normally the water temperature is kept around 106F (41C). They mix natural hot water intake (165F) with cold water from another spring. 106F can be tolerated for a brief wading in the lake, but they don't recommend swimming. On my second day there, their cold water pump didn't work, and the lake temperature reached about 110F (4 degrees difference in Fahrenheit and 2 degrees in Celsius). At that temperature the water was too hot just to enter the pool.
I operate best in a rather narrow temperature range. Somewhere between 18 and 25C.
Why do you want to bathe in such hot water? If climate change makes it too hot, you'll just stop bathing there. Similarly, if it gets too hot in some of the world's areas for people to live in, they'll just adapt or move. So will the animals. Climate change is nothing new.
Also, as I mentioned before, who says that two degrees higher is not better than what we have now? Why assume current conditions are optimum? It's hubris when man thinks that just because he's experiencing something now, that it's the best in the 4.5 billion year history of the earth. It may turn out that a few degrees warmer is actually better.
-
Because I don't like playing chess with pigeons, I'll just post this here & not comment further -
"Ice in the Antarctic is melting at a record-breaking rate and the subsequent sea rises could have catastrophic consequences for cities around the world, according to two new studies.
[...]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show
Indeed, although not really a surprise, but it's looking worse than previously thought. Which is cause for concern.
Here's another article about this research paper that's also special in the sense that it's a collaborative effort to combine many separate research projects that focused on specific aspects of the bigger picture.
Latest estimate shows how much Antarctic ice has fallen into the sea
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/latest-estimate-shows-how-much-antarctic-ice-has-fallen-into-the-sea/
"The complex, multi-pronged nature of this effort means that researchers frequently publish separate estimates of change based on the type of data they are collecting, rather than integrating all sources of information. These numbers can naturally differ, making it hard to put your finger on one answer.
Enter the huge collaboration of Antarctic researchers called the IMBIE Project (the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise). This week, that collaboration published a new analysis of all the available data from dozens of studies, producing an overall best estimate of Antarctic ice loss between 1992 and 2017."
This bigger picture does not look good if one understands that the acceleration that has been observed happened over a period of just 25 years, and the idea that the amount of Antarctic ice is large enough to cause almost 60 metres (almost 200 feet) sea level rise. Sure, that won't happen overnight, but it's irresponsible to let it even start and potentially run out of control in that direction if tipping points are crossed.
We do not have a planet B.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What "urgent action" can possibly be done?
We can all run home and hide under the bed.
-
Because I don't like playing chess with pigeons...
Thanks, mate.
-
Since you are once again repeating the alarmist predictions, only fair to repeat the last one too:
-
...
This bigger picture does not look good if one understands that the acceleration that has been observed happened over a period of just 25 years, and the idea that the amount of Antarctic ice is large enough to cause almost 60 metres (almost 200 feet) sea level rise. Sure, that won't happen overnight, but it's irresponsible to let it even start and potentially run out of control in that direction if tipping points are crossed.
We do not have a planet B.
Cheers,
Bart
There you go cherry picking numbers to scare people. To get the 60 metres (almost 200 feet) rise in sea level, the entire ice and snow covering in the Antarctic would have to melt. No one is predicting that anytime soon. It's been collecting snow for 35 million years ever since its land mass moved to the pole where there is little direct sunlight even in the summer. Unless the Antarctic suddenly starts moving north, which isn't going to happen, it's not all going to melt. It's silly fear tactics like this that weakens your position. You sound like a used car salesman or insurance salesman. You'd convince more people if you stopped the hyperbole.
-
Since you are once again repeating the alarmist predictions, only fair to repeat the last one too:
Prediction???
Care to show where Al Gore actually said that? Or is this another one pulled out of where the sun don't shine?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Not because I think Gore needs help, but because I don't expect you to produce any credible source, here's what he actually said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
-
... Care to show where Al Gore actually said that? Or is this another one pulled out of where the sun don't shine?
First, I do not post things that are pulled out of thin air (to avoid repeating your vulgarity). Feel free to quote me if I ever did that.
Second, here is a YouTube video from December 14, 2009, speech he gave in UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark (around 2:20s mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
For those who do not like clicking on video links, he said "... new computer modeling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
-
First, I do not post things that are pulled out of thin air (to avoid repeating your vulgarity). Feel free to quote me if I ever did that.
Second, here is a YouTube video from December 14, 2009, speech he gave in UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark (around 2:20s mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
For those who do not like clicking on video links, he said "... new computer modeling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014.
Even your quote is selective, inaccurate, and even then still does not show that Al Gore made the prediction that you suggested.
He actually said:
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 - 7 years. Bob used the number of 2030. And the volumetric analysis leads this Dr. Maslowski to make that projection. We will find out.
Sigh. Hope Alan K.'s not to harsh on you ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Even your quote is selective, inaccurate, and even then still does not show that Al Gore made the prediction that you suggested...
Seriously!? In any case, I provided the video, so people can decide for themselves.
-
Seriously!? In any case, I provided the video, so people can decide for themselves.
And the volumetric analysis leads this Dr. Maslowski to make that projection. We will find out.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Dr. Maslowski denied he made such a prediction. It was Gore's interpretation of Dr. Maslowski's research, thus Gore owns that alarmist prediction.
-
Al Gore's a charlatan who's made over a hundred million dollars promoting global warming and climate change.
-
Even your quote is selective, inaccurate, and even then still does not show that Al Gore made the prediction that you suggested.
He actually said:
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 - 7 years. Bob used the number of 2030. And the volumetric analysis leads this Dr. Maslowski to make that projection. We will find out.
Sigh. Hope Alan K.'s not to harsh on you ...
Cheers,
Bart
Clearly one of you is wrong.
Some models suggest and 75% chance and could be don't fit on the photo Slobodan posted and adding that text would probably dismiss using the photo for the intended purpose. But again, one of you is wrong about what Gore actually stated. :(
-
Al Gore's a charlatan who's made over a hundred million dollars promoting global warming and climate change.
I don't think even his worst enemies would accuse him of "promoting" global warming or climate change. Isn't he against both?
Jeremy
-
... Some models suggest and 75% chance and could be don't fit on the photo Slobodan posted...
"Predict" covers "chance," "models," and "could be" by definition, does it not? Especially a model with a 75% chance, don't you think?
-
... global warming or climate change. Isn't he against both?
Now that the Nobel Prize winner is against climate change, we can all sleep peacefully ;)
-
"Predict" covers "chance," "models," and "could be" by definition, does it not? Especially a model with a 75% chance, don't you think?
What your illustration posted states, and what was stated in the video provided are not the same. Let's stick to that first, instead of you providing us a lesson on English and semantics.
Please provide a video or transcript as I did from a video, that states what your illustration implies Gore said.
-
What your illustration posted states, and what was stated in the video provided are not the same...
Of course it is not verbatim the same, why would it be? It is a summary, a headline. The essence is still the same, however. As any summary or any news headline, it is supposed to summarize the essence of a more detailed event or statement. As any other summary, it will, by definition, omit details. Denying that would deny newspapers and media the use of headlines. Denying that would require every headline to be a verbatim paragraph quote.
But let's, for the sake of argument, use the whole quote:
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 - 7 years.
So, let's see:
DID...
- the entire North Polar ice cap
- during summer
- or during some of the summer months
- or even during a split-second (see my generosity here?)
- get completely ice-free
- in 2014-2106
Did it, or did it not?
That's what matter, not your hairsplitting over a summary.
-
Of course it is not verbatim the same, why would it be?
Are the ideas of honesty, accuracy, new for you, can I now take your writings out of context, reedit them, distort them with imagery behind them; that's OK with you?
It is a summary, a headline.
It isn't what he said. Period
The essence is still the same, however.
Perhaps for you. Not for Bart, not for me, perhaps for others.
DID...
Doesn't matter in terms of the butchering of what Gore actually said!
And if it didn't, that's moot as there was plenty of the text that stated this was a possibility, not a guarantee. Do you understand the difference in those two possibilities?
That's what matter, not your hairsplitting over a summary.
What matters is the lie (you?) produced but certainly posted out of context, edited and made to prove a point that didn't exist. That tactic which is dishonest shows the lengths some here have to go to pass their agenda/opinions. Bart and I (others?) called it out. Justify the lie all you wish; it is still a lie.
-
This is fun after all! :o
-
... That tactic which is dishonest shows the lengths some here have to go to pass their agenda/opinions...
Finally we agree on something ;)
-
Finally we agree on something ;)
Then if you stop doing it, I'll stop too (once for me, to make a point is enough).
-
... Please provide a video or transcript as I did from a video, that states what your illustration implies Gore said.
Here you go (41s mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmqtkeQy9c
Transcript:
"The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."
-
Here you go (41s mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmqtkeQy9c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmqtkeQy9c)
Transcript:"The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."
Nice try, that still doesn't jive with what you created (did you?) but certainly posted:
-
Of course it is not verbatim the same, why would it be? It is a summary, a headline. The essence is still the same, however.
Hi Slobodan,
No, the essence still remains wrong, especially troubling coming from someone who occasionally tries to accuse others of Ad Hominem attacks. Not that Al Gore needs defending and, for the record, I do not agree with everything he says either.
But allow me to add just a friendly piece of advice;
When in hole stop digging.
Anyway, this exchange still has its value, IMHO, because it also (who'd have thunk it) demonstrates just another manifestation of another thread's topic (thanks to Alan K.):
"Does a photo lie or its caption?"
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125304.0
As any summary or any news headline, it is supposed to summarize the essence of a more detailed event or statement.
Which it doesn't.
But let's, for the sake of argument, use the whole quote:
So, let's see:
DID...
Irrelevant, partly because hindsight has 20/20 vision (in fact it's a very cheap, and transparent, trick of an attempt to undermine someone's credibility). What's more, he apparently rephrased his recollection of someone else's remarks. As you yourself admitted, that's unlikely to be as accurate as a verbatim transcription.
Was he accurate? I don't know. You only supplied a suggestion that he was not, but an accurate kind of 'proof' was, as usual, missing. Innuendo only goes so far (as to discredit the one uttering it), but maybe (hopefully) you can still offer something more substantial (I know, I know, I''m an optimist).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I finally have to admit, regrettably, that Bill was right: no point of playing chess with pigeons.
-
I finally have to admit, regrettably, that Bill was right: no point of playing chess with pigeons.
Bill was generous! :(
Cheers,
Bart
-
I finally have to admit, regrettably, that Bill was right: no point of playing chess with pigeons.
I was right, Bill was playing with pigeons regrettably: no point.
-
I don't think even his worst enemies would accuse him of "promoting" global warming or climate change. Isn't he against both?
Jeremy
No. My use of the word "promoting" in the sentence is correct. Until Gore came along practically no one heard of global warming. The definition of promote also has the following meaning:
b : to help bring (something, such as an enterprise) into being : launch
c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting. [\i]
Certainly a lot of people bought the promotion and swallowed the bait. And he got rich in the process.
-
No. My use of the word "promoting" in the sentence is correct. Until Gore came along practically no one heard of global warming.
In some circles only.
There were other activitists before but not necessarily on board of Apple. One example is David Suzuki who created Suzuki Foundation in 1990 "to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that does sustain us". The Foundation's priorities are: oceans and sustainable fishing, climate change and clean energy, sustainability, and Suzuki's Nature Challenge. The Foundation also works on ways to help protect the oceans from large oil spills such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Suzuki has also served as a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association from 1982 to 1987.
Another interesting example is Katharine Hayhoe, the daughter of missionaries, who is also an evangelical Christian.
Though the science supporting climate change grows ever more compelling, fewer Americans now accept the scientific consensus than they did three years ago. Fewer groups are more resistant than political conservatives, especially white evangelical Christians, who often say that climate change is a hoax. Besides teaching at Texas Tech in Lubbock, conducting research and writing, Hayhoe meets with Christian colleges, church groups, senior citizens, professional associations and just about anyone else to explain that Earth's climate is changing and that human beings are behind it.
Like any climatologist, she is armed with data. Yet Hayhoe also speaks of climate change in a language to which conservative Christians can relate, about protecting God's creation and loving one's neighbors. Hayhoe is a climate change evangelist in the West Texas Bible Belt, compelled by her faith to protect the least among us by sharing what she knows, even if it's science that many around her reject.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/partner-news/katharine-hayhoe-a-climate-change-evangelist
BTW, why are the climate evangelists attacked, while the Adobe Photoshop evangelists are celebrated?
-
Suzuki and Hayhoe didn't win the Nobel prize. Gore did:
The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Before Gore, few people knew or cared about climate change. He promoted it.
-
Do you think, he can beat Trump in 2020 ?
-
Do you think, he can beat Trump in 2020 ?
Les, we have a different thread for a question like that, “A Touch of Humor” 😀
-
If the current situation wasn't so sad, it would be indeed funny.
From my observation post, Al Gore seems well positioned for a POTUS position. He knows politics, modern industries, and understands climate/pollution matters. And he is not friends with Clintons.
On the other hand, Trump has a bigger airplane.
-
... Al Gore seems well positioned for a POTUS position. He knows politics, modern industries, and understands climate/pollution matters...
Plus, he invented the Internet. What’s not to like?
-
Just trying to be helpful. But I'd better stop meddling in foreign affairs, this hasn't been a good week for Canadians.
-
Plus, he invented the Internet. What’s not to like?
No smileys, so I have to assume that you are serious:
https://www.vox.com/cards/the-internet/did-al-gore-invent-the-internet
Cheers,
Bart
-
But of course, that and his prediction that the North Pole
will might completely melt in 2014 will surely make me vote for him in 2020.
-
But of course, that and his prediction that the North Pole will might completely melt in 2014 will surely make me vote for him in 2020.
Where did he state they either will or might completely melt in 2014?
com·plete·ly
kəmˈplētlē/Submit
adverb
totally; utterly.
"the fire completely destroyed the building"
-
Where did he state they either will or might completely melt in 2014?
On 10 December 2007, in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, Gore said:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
Maybe your beef should be with the authors of the studies (either, both, all)?
-
Where did he state they either will or might completely melt in 2014?...
... He actually said:
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski[that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 - 7 years....
And from another video I posted (reply 623): "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."
-
And from another video I posted (reply 623): "The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years."
EXPERTS in their fields who make predictions should be held to account for said predictions, not those who repeat them.
I predict that all new display systems will be wide gamut (larger than sRGB) by 2024. You are free to quote me. I could be wrong, it is a prediction. If I am wrong, I'm to blame for the wrong prediction.
If you want to dump on Gore for providing predictions from experts because you don't like his politics, then do so by being honest that you're not a fan of his politics. Not because he's quoting multiple experts in a field he's not an expert (he's not and I don't believe he's ever stated he's a climate scientist).
Your need to slam Gore, instead of Dr. Maslowski is noted. And unnecessarily.
-
EXPERTS in their fields who make predictions should be held to account for said predictions, not those who repeat them.
I predict that all new display systems will be wide gamut (larger than sRGB) by 2024. You are free to quote me. I could be wrong, it is a prediction. If I am wrong, I'm to blame for the wrong prediction.
If you want to dump on Gore for providing predictions from experts because you don't like his politics, then do so by being honest that you're not a fan of his politics. Not because he's quoting multiple experts in a field he's not an expert (he's not and I don't believe he's ever stated he's a climate scientist).
Your need to slam Gore, instead of Dr. Maslowski is noted. And unnecessarily.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Except a couple of points:
- nobody knows who Dr. Maslowski is. Most people know who Al Gore is
- it is not Dr. M. who got a Nobel Prize, or Oscar, or $millions, for peddling those predictions
- Dr. M. denied he made such a prediction, at least not with a 75% certainty and in such a short time span
- that prediction Gore repeated multiple times, every time with less and less qualifiers, i.e., it was not a single misspoken incident
- therefore, Al Gore bears responsibility for that climate doom and gloom mongering
Which brings us to the most important part: the current doom and gloom predictions about polar caps melting. The researches are now smarter, after Gore's spectacular blunder, and push the melting point into the future long enough that, when/if it happens, or not, the authors will be long forgotten, and not exposed to criticism and ridicule like Gore was.
The reason I posted that Internet meme (not mine, btw) is make a point about such catastrophic predictions: if the last one failed to materialize so spectacularly, why should be trust the next one, to the point of taking immediate and drastic countermeasures?
Let me be clear: I am not against research and researchers. They should do their job. And occasionally create a doom and gloom scenarios. All that has its place in science. And they should not be held responsible for it unless they did it deliberately dishonestly (as some did), or with gross negligence or incompetence. What I am against is taking such research, especially the most drastic ones, as gospel, and weaponizing it through politics and media, demanding "immediate measures." That's why I hold Gore more responsible than the researchers.
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
Except a couple of points:
- nobody knows who Dr. Maslowski is. Most people know who Al Gore is
You're speaking for everyone now? That's kind of a sign of desperation.
- therefore, Al Gore bears responsibility for that climate doom and gloom mongering
Therefore, Al Gore bears credit for that climate change reality to be introduced to a larger audience!
Which brings us to the most important part: the current doom and gloom predictions about polar caps melting. The researches are now smarter, after Gore's spectacular blunder, and push the melting point into the future long enough that, when/if it happens, or not, the authors will be long forgotten, and not exposed to criticism and ridicule like Gore was.
The specific predictions were indeed wrong. But do tell us what's happened since the wrong predictions:
The ice under discussion hasn't changed at all
The ice under discussion has melted/reduced albeit, not to the large degree predicted by some.
The ice under discussion has increased.
Let me be clear: I am not against research and researchers. They should do their job.
Based on the vast majority of researchers, which of the three possibilities above have happened?
Pick door #1, #2, or #3.
And occasionally create a doom and gloom scenarios.
I'm not interested in such scenarios. I'm interested in what's happening today, based on predictions of the past by experts. Which of the three do the vast majority of scientists state is happening?
If it continues, at the same rate, a slower rate, a faster rate, it will continue and what's the possible results? Are you quite sure that this will have no effect on just sea level and it will have zero negative affects? Forget gloom and doom, just tell us what my mother in law, who's home is on the beach could expect if sea levels rise? Gloom for you or me? Probably not. Gloom for her and most residents on the the coast, next to the ocean where she lives? I suspect based on my understating of what rising sea levels means (not a complicated concept), she's in for trouble. Or whoever decides to live in the same location. Yes or no?
What I am against is taking such research, especially the most drastic ones, as gospel, and weaponizing it through politics and media, demanding "immediate measures." That's why I hold Gore more responsible than the researchers.
Gore picked one of the doors above. Which door will you pick?
-
Here's an example when government "conspires" with industry and science for bribes, ah, I mean funding. Government workers for the US National Institutes of Health are accused of soliciting funding from companies who sell alcohol to continue studies that moderate consumption of alcohol is good for you. The NIH is shutting down the study and program.
While the NIH isn't the Environmental Protection Agency who studies climate change, the closeness in every government agency with outside sources of money from industry is another reason to doubt the government. Agency officials are often in revolving doors between government and then get jobs in industry.
https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/15/nih-report-controversial-alcohol-study/
-
Here's an example when government "conspires" with industry and science for bribes, ah, I mean funding. Government workers for the US National Institutes of Health are accused of soliciting funding from companies who sell alcohol to continue studies that moderate consumption of alcohol is good for you. The NIH is shutting down the study and program.
While the NIH isn't the Environmental Protection Agency who studies climate change, the closeness in every government agency with outside sources of money from industry is another reason to doubt the government. Agency officials are often in revolving doors between government and then get jobs in industry.
https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/15/nih-report-controversial-alcohol-study/
I will weigh in on this because it is not related to climate change (I only post links as you know). I worked at NIH years ago and am now on the board of directors of an NIH affiliated organization. The people who did this were way off the reservation. NIH does work with groups that raise outside money to do important research and this is routinely done through the Foundation for the NIH, a non-profit organization that allows industry, academia and the NIH to collaborate on important research projects. Sometimes these projects involve both industry and NIH funding (best example here is the Alzheimer's Disease Neural Imaging initiative that is trying to come up with reliable testing methodologies to improve clinical trials for this disease) and sometimes it is just industry funding. Collaborators on these projects include representatives from industry, academia, NIH and the FDA. All projects are managed with open transparency and results are published. While I was still VP for Science and Technology at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, we developed to collaborative projects that were transferred to FNIH and our member companies participated in several others that were developed by NIH or FDA. There are other organizations that also house public/private partnerships and there is nothing wrong with this as long as everything is above board.
This alcohol study funding was clearly egregious and NIH was correct to shut down the study. I'm sure the individuals who sought this money without notifying their superiors will be punished.
-
Alan I'm sure you do everything above board and thanks for your involvement in your important work. But not everyone is like you. Many people in government use their position to help outside companies to better themselves when they leave government and enter private industry often with those very same companies.
The problem is today with so many people seeing the shenanigans that go on in government and the close relationships and revolving doors between government and industry, it makes people doubt the efficacy of government support of projects including climate change. There's this sense of being lied too; that everyone's got their hands in your pocket looking to get rich off your hard work.
-
Not only in Italy, possibly also in other countries.
-
Nature at work using adaptation as coral adjusts to more acidic oceans caused by CO2.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a21270802/coral-might-be-adjusting-its-dna-to-survive-warming-oceans/
-
Nature at work using adaptation as coral adjusts to more acidic oceans caused by CO2.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a21270802/coral-might-be-adjusting-its-dna-to-survive-warming-oceans/
Alan,
Adaption is the most fundamental principle at work in the development of all forms of life, including us humans. Creatures that adapt to changing circumstances survive. Those that fail to adapt become extinct.
Many past civilizations collapsed because they were unable to adapt to natural changes in climate.
The false message that the 'climate change alarmists' seem to be promoting is that we can stop the climate changing by reducing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere. What arrogance! ;)
The issue of ocean acidification is another example of the distortion of the science in favor of alarmism.
The average pH of the ocean surfaces is estimated to have changed from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral and below 7 is acidic.
The alarmists try to exaggerate that change by describing the 0.1 change in the logarithmic pH scale as a 30% increase in acidity. A 30% change on a linear scale can be quite significant. If one's salary increases by 30%, or the value of one's home increases by 30%, one would likely be very pleased, or very displeased if the value were reduced by that percentage.
However, in order for the oceans to get even close to being acidic, reaching a pH of 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, the acidity would have to increase by 900%. The attached chart from NOAA illustrates the percentage change for each change of 0.1 in pH values.
There is also the fact to consider that the pH of the oceans is constantly changing according to the season of the year, the depth of the ocean and the location, and this regular change is greater than the long-term predicted average change during the next 100 years or so, due to mankind's CO2 emissions.
There are lots of studies which demonstrate the ability of sea creatures to adapt to changing levels of CO2. I've listed a few below.
"Echinometra sea urchins acclimatized to elevated pCO2 at volcanic vents outperform those under present‐day pCO2 conditions."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13223
"An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility, and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century.
There is no evidence to support the claim that most calcifying marine species will become extinct owing to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lower pH in the oceans."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000136
"No ocean acidification effects on shell growth and repair in the New Zealand brachiopod Calloria inconspicua."
"Foraging behaviour of the epaulette shark Hemiscyllium ocellatum is not affected by elevated CO2."
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/633/2458696
"Abstract
Most studies on the impact of near-future levels of carbon dioxide on fish behaviour report behavioural alterations, wherefore abnormal behaviour has been suggested to be a potential consequence of future ocean acidification and therefore a threat to ocean ecosystems. However, an increasing number of studies show tolerance of fish to increased levels of carbon dioxide. "
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/620/2458707
"This study suggests that elevated CO2 may impair photosynthetic activity, but not growth, of a hard coral under competition and confirms the hypothesis that soft corals are generally resistant to elevated CO2. Overall, our results indicate that shifts in the species composition in coral communities as a result of elevated CO2 could be more strongly related to the individual tolerance of different species rather than a result of competitive interactions between species."
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/659/2458741
"The hypothesis that “marine microbes possess the flexibility to accommodate pH change” is primarily based on the observation that microbial populations confront large variations in pH, both short-term and seasonally, in marine environments (Joint et al., 2011). This hypothesis is supported by recent studies at the microbial community level (Allgaieret al., 2008; Newbold et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2013; Sperling et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2013)."
https://phys.org/news/2016-05-well-travelled-plankton-global.html
"Corals Are A Net Source Of CO2, For They Release CO2 As They Grow And Thrive; ‘Acidification’ A Sign Of Healthy Corals."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2016GL068772
"More Than 90% Of Ocean PH Changes (‘Acidification’) Is Caused By Natural Variability, Not Anthropogenic CO2.
Finally, the assumption that changes in the oceans’ pH levels are primarily caused by humans is just that: a non-confirmed assumption. As Duarte et al. (2015) conclude, there is “no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2”. Possibly the only people who still “believe” in the paradigm are those who are inclined to accept doomsday scenarios and those who are being financially compensated to keep them going."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2015GL064431
"Policy science concerning the Great Barrier Reef is almost never checked. Over the next few years, Australian governments will spend more than a billion dollars on the Great Barrier Reef; the costs to industry could far exceed this. Yet the keystone research papers have not been subject to proper scrutiny. Instead, there is a total reliance on the demonstrably inadequate peer-review process."
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/05/university-professor-sacked-telling-truth/
Should I go on? ;)
-
Alan,
Adaption is the most fundamental principle at work in the development of all forms of life, including us humans. Creatures that adapt to changing circumstances survive. Those that fail to adapt become extinct.
Many past civilizations collapsed because they were unable to adapt to natural changes in climate....
Ray, the issue isn't only coral adapting to acid. They also can get up and move. If the water becomes too hot in one area, coral will spread to "colder" locations where the conditions are better and re-establish themselves. Here's an example. They have found corals expanding northward at 14km per year, which is astounding.
https://www.livescience.com/13461-coral-reefs-warming-oceans-moving-poleward.html
Many people accuse me of being anti science and anti-nature. That isn't true. I have always been amazed by science and love getting out to take landscapes and see the natural world in all its beauty and awesomeness. I like breathing clean air and drinking fresh water. I'm also a firm believer in Darwin, someone many proponents of climate change forget about. It's as if their interest in natural events stop at CO2. They should know better. Even the polar bear isn;t going to die out. The bears move around finding better areas to prey in where ice is the same. If worse comes to worse, they'll move back to land where they once lived and find prey there. Their color will revert from white to brown again. Life goes on. Even the groups of humans whose civilization ended because of climate change didn't really die out. Like coral moving north, they moved on to other more productive areas to become the civilizations of the modern world.
So successful were they that they caused the very issues we're arguing about today due to their population explosion. That frankly is the only thing that could change that would make any meaningful dent on the environment by man, small or large as it may be. And even trying to control population doesn't work. China's horrendous great experiment of one-child families hasn't made much of a decrease in their 1.3 billion population. Most of them are still relatively poor. They're clamoring to move into middle class with all the attendant pollution and effects on the environment as the demand for carbon powered appliances, air conditioners, heating, autos, etc. escalate.
-
The false message that the 'climate change alarmists' seem to be promoting is that we can stop the climate changing by reducing minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere. What arrogance! ;)
What nonsense!
Nobody is promoting that we can stop the accelerating rate of climate change. The only way to achieve a stop is by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuel by man, which is clearly unrealistic. If we're lucky, we might be able and slow it down a bit. At the current rate, it's unlikely that we can limit the resulting increase of global temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius (above pre-industrial levels) by the end of the century. It'is questionable if the goal set by the Paris Climate Agreement can be achieved without all players contributing in line with their nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
The issue of ocean acidification is another example of the distortion of the science in favor of alarmism.
Again, what nonsense!
Distortion of science? What on earth are you talking about.
The full scale of Hydrogen ion and hydroxide ion activities has a range of 14 magnitudes, requiring 14 decimal digits to express the extremes. That's the only reason that the pH scale is expressed in logarithmic numbers, to keep notation manageable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What nonsense!
Nobody is promoting that we can stop the accelerating rate of climate change. The only way to achieve a stop is by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuel by man, which is clearly unrealistic.
That's what I meant. If mankind were able to completely stop all emissions from the burning of fossil fuel, realistic or not, the reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would be minuscule, yet the alarmists seem to think that such minuscule reductions in CO2 could actually stop the climate changing, since they believe the current change in climate is mainly due to increased CO2 levels.
As I've mentioned before, if it were possible to funnel CO2 into outer space so that CO2 levels could be brought down to the estimated pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million in a very short period of time, there could be agricultural catastrophe and mass starvation as a result of a lower CO2-fertilzation effect.
Again, what nonsense!
Distortion of science? What on earth are you talking about.
You'll have to read the links I've provided in order to understand what I'm talking about. Did you not read the article about the sacking of Professor Peter Ridd who dared to criticize the soundness of the research on the Great Barrier Reef?
The alarmism about ocean acidification, like the alarmism about the warming effect of minuscule percentage increases in atmospheric CO2, is not based upon sound science, because the very complex and chaotic nature of the subject does not lend itself to the application of the most rigorous and basic principles of the scientific methodology, which are required before certainty on any issue can be achieved.
Didn't you know that, Bart? I am surprised. ;D
-
Ray, the issue isn't only coral adapting to acid. They also can get up and move. If the water becomes too hot in one area, coral will spread to "colder" locations where the conditions are better and re-establish themselves.
Absolutely! I agree with your entire post, Alan; although I might have been a bit doubtful about your position on Darwinism because of your previously expressed views on religion. ;)
-
Absolutely! I agree with your entire post, Alan; although I might have been a bit doubtful about your position on Darwinism because of your previously expressed views on religion. ;)
I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection. Isn't God so clever?
-
I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection. Isn't God so clever?
Based on the expansion of the ticks to Canada, saucy or nervy would be better adjectives.
-
Based on the expansion of the ticks to Canada, saucy or nervy would be better adjectives.
Yeah. There's no figuring what He's going to do next. :)
-
I don't find any conflict with a belief in God and a belief in natural selection. Isn't God so clever?
Sure! If He exists, He must be tremendously clever; completely beyond the comprehension of mere human mortals who, after many centuries of scientific endeavour, are beginning to realize that the most sophisticated scientific instruments we have developed might potentially be capable of detecting only 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The other 95% is an unknown substance we have labelled Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It may or may not exist, but we can be certain that God exists, eh! ;D
I can appreciate the emotional need to have some degree of communication with the most powerful entity that the human mind can imagine. Such beliefs can have very significant placebo effects, help to cure illnesses, and have other social benefits such as bringing people together, but there are also negative consequences to such unfounded beliefs, such as continual warfare which has inflicted tremendous misery on millions of victims throughout the history of mankind, and continues to this day in the form of ISIS and the continuous conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The analogy using religious belief to describe climate change alarmism, is very relevant. There is a similarity in the sense that both the existence of a Creator God and the existence of the 'devastatingly harmful effects (the devil)' of rising CO2 levels, are scientifically unfounded, that is, beyond the scope of the most rigorous methodology of science which provides a rational degree of certainty.
-
Which reminds me of the entomologist who was said to have said that God must favor beetles because there's at least 600,000 different species of them, more than any other by a long shot.
-
Sure! If He exists, He must be tremendously clever; completely beyond the comprehension of mere human mortals who, after many centuries of scientific endeavour, are beginning to realize that the most sophisticated scientific instruments we have developed might potentially be capable of detecting only 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. The other 95% is an unknown substance we have labelled Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It may or may not exist, but we can be certain that God exists, eh! ;D
I can appreciate the emotional need to have some degree of communication with the most powerful entity that the human mind can imagine. Such beliefs can have very significant placebo effects, help to cure illnesses, and have other social benefits such as bringing people together, but there are also negative consequences to such unfounded beliefs, such as continual warfare which has inflicted tremendous misery on millions of victims throughout the history of mankind, and continues to this day in the form of ISIS and the continuous conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The analogy using religious belief to describe climate change alarmism, is very relevant. There is a similarity in the sense that both the existence of a Creator God and the existence of the 'devastatingly harmful effects (the devil)' of rising CO2 levels, are scientifically unfounded, that is, beyond the scope of the most rigorous methodology of science which provides a rational degree of certainty.
Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith? Of course many feel that global warming adherents operate on faith too with most of their facts hidden in a dark cloud somewhere. :)
-
Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith? Of course many feel that global warming adherents operate on faith too with most of their facts hidden in a dark cloud somewhere. :)
The point would be faith in the true scientific methodology of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, which could prove that God exists, if it were the case that proof was possible.
This type of faith in the hard methodology of science appears to be seriously lacking among climate-change alarmists. They seem to have faith in any type of science, however soft, if it meets their preconceived agenda. ;D
-
It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus. Scientists and researchers are not using strict and consistent procedures. Standards are weak. When tests and experiments are repeated by different scientists, they can't get repeatable results.
Of course, I've long suspected that things don't seem right when science keeps reversing themselves. How many times have they changed the food "pyramid" of what type of foods are best for us and in what quantities? How about PSA tests? Drugs that have been accepted only to find that they really cause more damage then originally claimed? E-cigarettes are good (for those trying to get off real cigarettes) only to find that we're addicting a whole new generation of kids to nicotine. We'll soon find out just how really bad marijuana is for you. The list goes on. Of course, many studies are paid for and pushed by the drug companies and other who stand to profit. It seems that every other ad on TV is about a drug I ought to try.
As we discussed, the Great Barrier Reef issue is receiving a billion dollars a year in studies and other upkeep work to the reef. The reason that scientist educator was being castigated was because the university probably was fearing loss of research funding or funding from the companies that benefit directly with that billion dollars. They told the university to get rid of that guy. He was hurting business. It reminds me of the joke a few years back when America had so much welfare for the poor going to thousands of companies providing expensive services for these people. Some old wit obviously on the take said, "Well, there's a lot of money in poverty."
Here's a quote by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
-
It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus.
How many would that be? How many total scientific studies over what time period too? The studies that you say are bogus where stated to be bogus by what peer review process?
It was dismaying to read recently how many photos are out of focus.
-
How many would that be? How many total scientific studies over what time period too? The studies that you say are bogus where stated to be bogus by what peer review process?
It was dismaying to read recently how many photos are out of focus.
From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:
"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). Failure to reproduce results differs among disciplines (percentages in brackets represent failure to reproduce own results):[7]
chemistry: 87% (64%),
biology: 77% (60%),
physics and engineering: 69% (51%),
Earth sciences: 64% (41%)…."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
-
If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉
-
From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:
"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). Failure to reproduce results differs among disciplines (percentages in brackets represent failure to reproduce own results):[7]
chemistry: 87% (64%),
biology: 77% (60%),
physics and engineering: 69% (51%),
Earth sciences: 64% (41%)…."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)
Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.
Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.
You're again grasping at straws to discredit work you apparently don't fully understand or wish to dismiss without merit.
-
If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉
What ratio? That's my point. Make one up. That would be expected for you to continue with that concept above.
-
Everybody on here needs to read "The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Far Outweigh the Costs" in this morning's Wall Street Journal.
-
If we had such a ratio of OOF shots, photographers would go the way of dinosaurs 😉
I've seen many photographs of waterfalls and oceans where the water was blurred beyond recognition. They must have used very slow cameras.
-
Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.
Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.
You're again grasping at straws to discredit work you apparently don't fully understand or wish to dismiss without merit.
I didn't state it. It was stated by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals. I'll let the readers decide if you or Horton reflects the current situation regarding scientific research accuracy.
Horton's quote: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
-
From a Wikipedia article on replication crisis of scientific studies:
"According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).
Well, there you have it, the scientific process at work. If (almost) nobody can reproduce the experiment/observations, it means that it will be rejected (unlike conspiracy theories in blogs).
If, on the other hand, many/most can reproduce (or amend and improve) it, the experiment will lead to an emergent truth upon which others can base further research. That's why also the number of references in reputable publications/studies is important.
The scientific method explained by a Scientist in a simple manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FvSXI2iBcA&feature=youtu.be
And here a bit more in detail and relating to climate change skeptics or even deniers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udeF6EFUzkk
Cheers,
Bart
-
I didn't state it. It was stated by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.
So you didn't state this, or agree with it: It was dismaying to read recently how many scientific studies are bogus.
-
There you have it: the more bogus science, the more scientific science is ;)
-
Well, if you could prove God exists, what we be the point of faith?
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
Voltaire
Or, more amusingly,
The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic. 'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Douglas Adams
I particularly like the "puff of logic".
Jeremy
-
Are you serious, equating the inability to reproduce an experiment as concluding all the work thus and later as bogus? What is reported above is a part of the scientific process. It's part of peer review and until that is fully finished and presented for peer review which includes multiple variations, it's utterly premature to state the science is bogus unless (and you've yet to provide that data), it is presented by a peer group as a settled agreement of the science and then, using the same process, rejected.
Look at how the scientific community, through peer review, dismissed the incorrect idea by Andrew Wakefield that vaccines produce autism. His work was bogus. He was discredited by the scientific community by and large. That's how peer review science studies and conclusions take place, after multiple groups of scientists have tested the thesis, multiple times, not once, by one scientists.
That's absolutely right. Horton has good reason to be wary of surprising research: it was he, as editor of the Lancet, who published Wakefield's fraudulent garbage.
The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more. It could mean the first was wrong; it could mean the second is incompetent; or perhaps that the result isn't obtained every time.
Jeremy
-
... The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more. It could mean the first was wrong; it could mean the second is incompetent; or perhaps that the result isn't obtained every time...
In the meantime, we better save billions of dollars until we figure out which is which ;)
-
In the meantime, we better save billions of dollars until we figure out which is which ;)
On the contrary, 'our' inaction will cost billions, and it will cost many many human lives.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's absolutely right. Horton has good reason to be wary of surprising research: it was he, as editor of the Lancet, who published Wakefield's fraudulent garbage.
And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted. So no, it's not absolutely right.
The inability of one scientist to reproduce the work of another is a mere curiosity, nothing more.
No, it's a lot more. It's part of the scientific process.
-
And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...
Note that, before publishing, it was also peer reviewed.
-
Note that, before publishing, it was also peer reviewed.
As we see on this forum daily, not all peers are created equally! :o
Skip ahead to the video Bart provided, 3 minutes in, learn....
-
As we see on this forum daily, not all peers are created equally! :o
Indeed... some are created with an extra pigeon gene ;)
-
Indeed... some are created with an extra pigeon gene ;)
Prove that scientifically, with multiple peer review experiments, showing multiple and consistent results, you might be onto something. Otherwise, you're not. It's just science fiction which news flash, isn't the same as science. :P
-
And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted. So no, it's not absolutely right. No, it's a lot more. It's part of the scientific process.
The problem is that if studies have such a high percentage of redaction once there is review, it's a pretty bad situation. I was to my doctor the other day, and he told me that for elderly people like myself, they just changed the A1C diabetes advisory to under 7.0. It was a lot less before but now they are only applying it to younger people. I don't have to take more medicine than I'm taking now. So that's good. But the problem is you just never know what's good advice any more about your health, never mind climate. Getting back to climate, just how real is the coral dying issue? How much of it is just being blown up or ignorance of reality or pushing the issue for other reasons. Skeptics like myself just don't believe scientists and politicians any longer. Everyone seems to be fudging the truth.
-
The problem is that if studies have such a high percentage of redaction once there is review, it's a pretty bad situation.
Do you believe and have data to suggest that's the norm? Of course when it happens, it's far from ideal. We're human, not perfect. But the scientific method is the best we have thus far and historically, works better than not. It's one thing to be a skeptic, it's another to be a fact/science denier. In fact, much of the scientific method is based on healthy skepticism, to a point. Going full circle to this massive debate. Do the vast majority of the scientific community accept or deny climate change? Seems the vast majority accept it. I'm not a climate scientist nor play one on TV. I think accepting the opinions of the vast majority of such scientists is far more rational than being a total skeptic. Unlike SO many, I know what I don't know and I have a pretty good idea of those that do know what I don't know. I even try to learn from them.
-
Do you believe and have data to suggest that's the norm? Of course when it happens, it's far from ideal. We're human, not perfect. But the scientific method is the best we have thus far and historically, works better than not. It's one thing to be a skeptic, it's another to be a fact/science denier. In fact, much of the scientific method is based on healthy skepticism, to a point. Going full circle to this massive debate. Do the vast majority of the scientific community accept or deny climate change? Seems the vast majority accept it. I'm not a climate scientist nor play one on TV. I think accepting the opinions of the vast majority of such scientists is far more rational than being a total skeptic. Unlike SO many, I know what I don't know and I have a pretty good idea of those that do know what I don't know. I even try to learn from them.
You don't have to be a scientist to have common sense. When a climatologist claims we're killing off corals, a species that has lasted for tens of millions of years through times when it was a lot hotter, you know they have an agenda. A fool and his money are soon parted.
-
You don't have to be a scientist to have common sense.
Old saying: Common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Next, what's common sense to you or someone else could be considered utter rubbish by another. That's what separates science from common sense.
Not long ago, it was common sense to believe the Earth was flat. That's utter nonsense we know today, based on science and observations based on science.
When a climatologist claims we're killing off corals, a species that has lasted for tens of millions of years through times when it was a lot hotter, you know they have an agenda.
That statement to me, lacks any common sense. Today, it is believed through science that man has been here for approx. 200,000 years, so what? A few nukes and we're all gone. So how long corals have been around has absolutely nothing to do with them dying off or do you believe they are not? I asked Solbodan earlier to pick one of three doors, he can't or will not. I'll ask you the same basic question about coral:
1. They are dying off.
2. They are not dying off whatsoever.
3. They are doing the opposite; there's more coral.
Pick a door and tell us how you base your selection please.
Next tell us why climatologist have an agenda to lie assuming you believe every climatologist is in total agreements? Specifically what agenda would any group of scientists who agree on data, have an agenda other than presenting that data? Now, I can imagine an agenda why non climatologist, politicians and people who don't like the idea of climate change may have an agenda. Or it's an agenda based on a lack of knowledge.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
So you are implying this scientific agenda is about money?
Speaking of fools:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
Kind of boils down to who we believe and why. I have no agenda about the climate. I do have an agenda of attempting to understand and accept scientific facts of the day, provided by the majority of such scientists nor do I believe they have any agenda other than understanding the science. I suppose that's the difference between each side in this debate.
-
Briefly breaking my rule about not commenting on this thread, has no one at all recognized the improper use of the word redaction? We have had maybe 5-6 posts without anyone realizing that it should be "retraction." Back to radio silence (but enjoying the foolish comments of many).
-
Briefly breaking my rule about not commenting on this thread, has no one at all recognized the improper use of the word redaction? We have had maybe 5-6 posts without anyone realizing that it should be "retraction." Back to radio silence (but enjoying the foolish comments of many).
re·dac·tion
rəˈdakSH(ə)n/
noun
the process of editing text for publication.
a version of a text, such as a new edition or an abridged version.
plural noun: redactions
- the censoring or obscuring of part of a text for legal or security purposes.
-
@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction. The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine. Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong. I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...
Back to radio silence.
-
Old saying: Common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Next, what's common sense to you or someone else could be considered utter rubbish by another. That's what separates science from common sense.
Not long ago, it was common sense to believe the Earth was flat. That's utter nonsense we know today, based on science and observations based on science. That statement to me, lacks any common sense. Today, it is believed through science that man has been here for approx. 200,000 years, so what? A few nukes and we're all gone. So how long corals have been around has absolutely nothing to do with them dying off or do you believe they are not? I asked Solbodan earlier to pick one of three doors, he can't or will not. I'll ask you the same basic question about coral:
1. They are dying off.
2. They are not dying off whatsoever.
3. They are doing the opposite; there's more coral.
Pick a door and tell us how you base your selection please.
Next tell us why climatologist have an agenda to lie assuming you believe every climatologist is in total agreements? Specifically what agenda would any group of scientists who agree on data, have an agenda other than presenting that data? Now, I can imagine an agenda why non climatologist, politicians and people who don't like the idea of climate change may have an agenda. Or it's an agenda based on a lack of knowledge. So you are implying this scientific agenda is about money?
Speaking of fools:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
Kind of boils down to who we believe and why. I have no agenda about the climate. I do have an agenda of attempting to understand and accept scientific facts of the day, provided by the majority of such scientists nor do I believe they have any agenda other than understanding the science. I suppose that's the difference between each side in this debate.
Who runs their life based on what some scientists say. You have to use some discernment, or at least I do. You can do what you wish.
Additionally, all the hoopla is not only coming from scientists. There are huge political and economic powers at work who benefit by pushing the climate agenda. As the expression goes, if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money.
-
@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction. The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine. Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong. I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...
Back to radio silence.
Before this is over, you're going to wish you maintained radio silence and never posted. :)
-
Maybe you ought to retract your post. :)
-
@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction. The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine. Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong. I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...
Back to radio silence.
Promises made but not kept.
-
Who runs their life based on what some scientists say.
Many of us. Those who believe in science (and can actually answer questions about it).
Additionally, all the hoopla is not only coming from scientists.
One man's hoopla is another's fact (based on science). For a science denier, everything must appear to be hoopla.
You probably really do believe in god? Elves, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc?
-
Many of us. Those who believe in science (and can actually answer questions about it). One man's hoopla is another's fact (based on science). For a science denier, everything must appear to be hoopla.
You probably really do believe in god? Elves, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc?
When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over. Have a nice day.
-
When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over. Have a nice day.
Insulting? I asked a question, actually quite a few. You don't want to reply to any so sure, move on and have a nice day.
-
Here's a quote by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
Alan,
It's interesting to see the response in this thread from the AGW alarmists, to the above criticism.
I've often got the impression that the term 'denier' could more appropriately be used to describe the 'alarmists' who seem to be in denial about the importance of the fundamental scientific process of repeated experimentation and the necessary attempts at falsification of any hypothesis before a degree of certainty can be achieved.
I've recently come across an article from Vox Media which addresses the current problems that face research scientists in many disciplines. It's an interesting read and more detailed than the article in your link.
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
I'll quote a few of the issues that are addressed, just for the benefit of the alarmists who might be reluctant to read anything which might undermine their religious certainty. ;D
"In the past several years, many scientists have become afflicted with a serious case of doubt — doubt in the very institution of science.
As reporters covering medicine, psychology, climate change, and other areas of research, we wanted to understand this epidemic of doubt. So we sent scientists a survey asking this simple question: If you could change one thing about how science works today, what would it be and why?"
"We heard back from 270 scientists all over the world, including graduate students, senior professors, laboratory heads, and Fields Medalists. They told us that, in a variety of ways, their careers are being hijacked by perverse incentives. The result is bad science."
"Our respondents told us, the process is riddled with conflict. Scientists say they’re forced to prioritize self-preservation over pursuing the best questions and uncovering meaningful truths."
"Today, scientists' success often isn't measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It's instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public."
"Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they’re incentivized to generate positive results they can publish. And the phrase "publish or perish" hangs over nearly every decision. It’s a nagging whisper, like a Jedi’s path to the dark side."
"Replication is another foundational concept in science. Researchers take an older study that they want to test and then try to reproduce it to see if the findings hold up.
Testing, validating, retesting — it's all part of a slow and grinding process to arrive at some semblance of scientific truth. But this doesn't happen as often as it should, our respondents said. Scientists face few incentives to engage in the slog of replication. And even when they attempt to replicate a study, they often find they can’t do so. Increasingly it’s being called a "crisis of irreproducibility."
"Peer review is broken.
Peer review is meant to weed out junk science before it reaches publication. Yet over and over again in our survey, respondents told us this process fails. It was one of the parts of the scientific machinery to elicit the most rage among the researchers we heard from."
"Science is poorly communicated to the public.
"If I could change one thing about science, I would change the way it is communicated to the public by scientists, by journalists, and by celebrities," writes Clare Malone, a postdoctoral researcher in a cancer genetics lab at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
She wasn't alone. Quite a few respondents in our survey expressed frustration at how science gets relayed to the public. They were distressed by the fact that so many laypeople hold on to completely unscientific ideas or have a crude view of how science works.
"You have this toxic dynamic where journalists and scientists enable each other in a way that massively inflates the certainty and generality of how scientific findings are communicated and the promises that are made to the public," writes Daniel Molden, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. "When these findings prove to be less certain and the promises are not realized, this just further erodes the respect that scientists get and further fuels scientists desire for appreciation."
-
Ray, add to those comments the fact that bad news sells. Everyone wants to see a catastrophe movie of the world blowing up or an invasion of alien species destroying the planet. What's interesting about a guy napping on a beach chair on a beautiful day at the shore? So journalists look for bad news about polar bears and coral rather than how CO2 is causing huge increases in the production of food to feed the world.
The other problem is that politicians look for wedge issues to separate themselves from their competitors to get more votes. Politicians are great in scaring people and the journalists eat it up. Scientists look at the landscape and politicians to get them funding for their pet projects. It's incestuous.
-
...CO2 is causing huge increases in the production of food to feed the world.
A concept relentlessly promoted here; that CO2 is good for food production. In fact, recently cast in serious doubt. Yes, bigger crops. No, not better food.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/june-9-2018-rising-co2-levels-make-food-less-nutritious-neonics-and-bees-tricking-facial-recognition-1.4696119/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-are-turning-rice-and-fish-into-junk-food-1.4696123
-
Peter, that isn't good news. However, rice will be developed that would not only grow more due to the CO2 increase, but will still maintain the same nutritional value. Genetic engineering and crop improvement have changed many food types over the years. Breeds of rice will be developed to counteract the effect the article addresses. Their were prediction forty years ago that there would be a world starvation to occur many years back to the increase population. Yet here we all are. That prediction went the way of many dire predictions. Man somehow figures out how to address these kinds of issues.
-
Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted. Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it. I wonder how many close relationships there are (were) between the Environmental Protection Agency and university climatologists who get EPA money for their research?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/health/nih-alcohol-study.html
-
When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over.
We can but hope.
-
Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted. Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it. I wonder how many close relationships there are (were) between the Environmental Protection Agency and university climatologists who get EPA money for their research?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/health/nih-alcohol-study.html
Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.
In the past few pages, you've expressed a disregard for the dangers of micro-plastics and some bizarre belief that widespread climate warming might be good. Are you also in favour of rolling back pollution controls on automobiles because "they might cost too much", despite the evidence that these regulations have provided a net benefit to everyone? And in case you haven't noticed, cars are better now in every way.
It's interesting to me how people who raise the issue of changes "costing too much" do so in the belief that they are being "realistic" while others are dreamers. Must be the illusion of having done a cost vs benefits analysis. But those cost vs benefit analyses are always deliberately incomplete, they always leave out the costs of NOT doing anything. Do you think no one notices?
-
Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.
In the past few pages, you've expressed a disregard for the dangers of micro-plastics and some bizarre belief that widespread climate warming might be good. Are you also in favour of rolling back pollution controls on automobiles because "they might cost too much", despite the evidence that these regulations have provided a net benefit to everyone? And in case you haven't noticed, cars are better now in every way.
It's interesting to me how people who raise the issue of changes "costing too much" do so in the belief that they are being "realistic" while others are dreamers. Must be the illusion of having done a cost vs benefits analysis. But those cost vs benefit analyses are always deliberately incomplete, they always leave out the costs of NOT doing anything. Do you think no one notices?
The revolving door between government and private companies has been a problem complained about for decades by Democrats and Republicans alike. It's so bad that lobbyists are forbidden to lobby for one year after they leave government service. The current administration raised that to 5 years.
My NIH post is one example how these cozy relationships exist. The public gets bad advice from research that is tainted. Researchers knowingly or subconsciously put their thumbs on the scales knowing that research funding depends on toeing the line with the agencies that provide the research funding. It also gives government employees an incentive to look the other way. They know that someday they'll be looking for a job in private industry. Liberals have been complaining about this for decades. Now suddenly you deny the problem exists.
-
...the costs of NOT doing anything...
If the cost of your funeral might reach $1 million (in today's dollars) 20 years from now, would you rather kill yourself today? ;)
In other words, would you prefer the certainty of the smaller amount to uncertainty of the larger and take the action today? I certainly don't want to give my certain tax dollars today to prevent what might, with a great deal of uncertainty, happen tomorrow... or not.
-
My NIH post is one example how these cozy relationships exist. The public gets bad advice from research that is tainted. Researchers knowingly or subconsciously put their thumbs on the scales knowing that research funding depends on toeing the line with the agencies that provide the research funding. It also gives government employees an incentive to look the other way. They know that someday they'll be looking for a job in private industry. Liberals have been complaining about this for decades. Now suddenly you deny the problem exists.
95% of all clinical trials for new drugs are funded by the pharmaceutical company that is developing the drug. Do you think these are all tainted?
-
95% of all clinical trials for new drugs are funded by the pharmaceutical company that is developing the drug. Do you think these are all tainted?
We're not talking about drugs here but climate change. Here's a link to EPA awards for climate change and other EPA related research. It shows topic, award amounts, institutions getting the funding and principal investigators.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/searchControlled.main?RequestTimeout=180&records_per_page=ALL&abstyperesearch=on&abstypegrants=on&identifier=on&institute=on&annual=on&pubcount=on&principal=on&grantamt=on&proposedstart=on&addRptOption=on&hiliteOption=on&refreshPage=True&txtSearch=&RESCAT=1171&RFA_AO=1
Here's the general page on EPA's climate change research grants.
https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants
-
EPA grants are a drop in the bucket compared to how much basic research is funded by NIH. Do you think the over $20B/year that NIH spends funding university investigators is tainted? You cannot be selective (maybe you can) and single out one group and not another.
-
EPA grants are a drop in the bucket compared to how much basic research is funded by NIH. Do you think the over $20B/year that NIH spends funding university investigators is tainted? You cannot be selective (maybe you can) and single out one group and not another.
I would think that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has higher standards than the politically moved Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially as it was under Obama. He used the EPA to push his agenda on pollution and climate change. So EPA administrators who awarded research grants favored those who supported Obama's agenda. So now Trump is doing the opposite. The EPA is a political football. I wouldn't believe anything that came out of there. I think and hope that isn't the case with the NIH.
-
Who runs their life based on what some scientists say.
Some? Not many, one might hope. Most of them? I start paying attention.
You have to use some discernment, or at least I do.
Discernment? Or flat out denial because it suits your personal agenda better?
Cheers,
Bart
-
A concept relentlessly promoted here; that CO2 is good for food production. In fact, recently cast in serious doubt. Yes, bigger crops. No, not better food.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/june-9-2018-rising-co2-levels-make-food-less-nutritious-neonics-and-bees-tricking-facial-recognition-1.4696119/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-are-turning-rice-and-fish-into-junk-food-1.4696123
Hi Peter,
Thanks for that link. As I've mentioned before (by now buried under an avalanche of nonsensical statements by deniers), elevated biomass growth, doesn't necessarily mean it has higher nutritional value. More is less?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted. Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it.
So, what you are reporting is that the Scientific Process, rooted out the aberration?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.
Indeed, if anything, it shows that the scientific process works. Bogus 'reports' get rooted out, and will rarely be referenced ever again, especially by reputable researchers. Quality over quantity.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...elevated biomass growth, doesn't necessarily mean it has higher nutritional value...
Well, pardon us, while for trying to feed seven billion people, for missing to provide filet mignons for everybody (or whatever your macrobiotic, vegan, gluten-free, organic, responsibly sourced, fair-trade equivalent is). Sheesh!
-
The revolving door between government and private companies has been a problem complained about for decades by Democrats and Republicans alike.
This seems to suggest that you only put 'faith' in USA produced 'narratives'.
A kind piece of advice, the US is not the world anymore, certainly it has not been for a long time, and especially it has not since recent time. In fact, (most of) the rest of the world has moved on since WW2, and has improved way beyond their old shadow.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, pardon us, while for trying to feed seven billion people, for missing to provide filet mignons for everybody (or whatever your macrobiotic, vegan, gluten-free, organic, responsibly sourced, fair-trade equivalent is). Sheesh!
I think, the decreased food quality in general has more to do with increasing profits for the large farms, as well as the fertilizer and proprietory seed companies than trying to feed all seven billion people.
-
Well, Les, we ARE feeding seven billion after all, aren't we?
-
I'm growing my own tomatoes. Big difference from the greenhouse plants.
The California strawberries are cheaper here than those grown in Ontario. Big and hard, they must be from the 7-billion production line.
-
Well, Les, we ARE feeding seven billion after all, aren't we?
Hi Slobodan,
Are 'we' (barely) feeding (some of) them (for commercial motives), or nourishing them?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Slobodan,
Are 'we' (barely) feeding (some of) them (for commercial motives), or nourishing them?
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I don't even know what that means. Could you explain it?
-
Regarding quality of food products, it's all about supply and demand like every other product. Do you buy cheap Chinese stuff that falls apart sooner than later? Or do you spend more money on better made products that last longer and work better? The consumer drives the market. If there wouldn't be a demand for cheaper food products, it wouldn't be produced. When I buy bananas, I can spend $79 per pound for regular ones or $99 per pound for organically grown, supposedly healthier. The point is there's more food available then ever before to feed the world. Genetic engineering has a lot to do with that and we will adjust the quality of rice as CO2 levels go up so they provide the same, maybe better, nutritional value than before.
-
I'm not sure about the stated nutritional numbers.
Of course, organic produce from a local farmer should be healthier than similar produce trucked in from large agricultural operations in Arizona or California.
But I noticed that our supermarkets carry mainly pretty looking, long lasting, and in most cases, quite tasteless fruit and vegetables. Often, you don't have a choice between two or more kinds of peaches, nectarines, pears, and other fruit. Many younger consumers never had the pleasure to bite into a real apple or mango.
I've been often wondering about the differences in nutritional values, enzymes, and vitamins of various fruit. And what are the real numbers.
Most books keep publishing the same nutritional values, but the nutrients in a ripe organic apple must be quite different than in another apple that was picked green, ripened on the truck or in storage with ethylene gas, and coated with wax. Not mentioning differences between different varieties of the same fruit, and fruit grown in different climates. On most farms the soil is gradually being depleted and that would lower the nutritional values again.
-
Les, It's hard to tell any longer what you're eating. Food comes from all parts of the world today. The negative is you don;t know what values are left in the product. On the other hand, you can buy seasonable fruits and vegetables year around. That's kinda nice. At the end of the day, you're probably getting the vitamins and minerals and other stuff you need or you wouldn't be healthy or live as long as we do today. My bigger problem is that I eat too much, especially carbs which I love, and I'm overweight. I seem not to be alone with that problem.
-
At the going rate, I suspect that we are getting fewer nutrients and more pesticides (sometimes even microplastics and antibiotics).
-
Do you buy cheap Chinese stuff that falls apart sooner than later? Or do you spend more money on better made products that last longer and work better?
Are not most iPhones made in China?
-
Bart, I don't even know what that means. Could you explain it?
Do you understand the difference between 'food' and 'nutriment'?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm proud (I think) to note that this bullshit thread, which I started way back in April, now far exceeds the length of the other, similar bullshit threads. Keep it up, guys. We're setting new records daily.
-
Do you understand the difference between 'food' and 'nutriment'?...
Great strategy, Bart!
Reminds me of the old joke:
A priest/imam/rabbi/ ask his faithfuls: "Do you know the story of the prophet X?"
The faithfuls: "No"
The priest: "Shame on you for not knowing it!"
Next time, he asks the same question: "Do you know the story of the prophet X?"
The faithfuls, cleverly answered: "Yes, of course!"
The priest: "Great! No need to tell you then."
A few weeks later, the same question: "Do you know the story of the prophet X?"
The faithfuls, even more clever this time: "Some of us do, some of us don't."
The priest: "Great! Those who do can then tell those who don't."
-
The goal of modern farming is to produce the maximum amount of food at the lowest cost, in order to be competitive in a free market.
It's probably true that much food grown in soil that gradually becomes depleted in micronutrients, trace elements, and beneficial soil microbes, as a result of regular tilling of the land, removal of biomass with each harvesting of the crop, and regular application of pesticides, and so on, contains smaller percentages of the nutrients essential for human health.
There have been a number of studies which suggest that the fruit and vegetables our grandfathers, or great grandfathers ate, had a much higher nutritional content than the food most of us eat today. However, the science is not very reliable because the testing procedures many decades ago were not as accurate as modern testing procedures (a bit like comparing past climates or past weather events with today's climate), and the variation of nutrient content in the same species of plant can vary enormously depending on so many factors, such as location, quality of soil, pH of the soil, application of which fertilizers and in what quantities, and so on.
The fertilizers which are most effective in increasing plant growth are Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorous. Applying these fertilizers to produce maximum growth, which farmers tend to do, can result in a 'dilution' effect with respect to the uptake of other minerals which are less essential for the plants' growth and are present in smaller quantities in the soil.
Carbon dioxide can also be considered a fertilizer which increases plant growth and also results in a dilution effect with respect to the uptake of certain micronutrients which might not exist in the soil in sufficient quantities for the percentages in the plant to remain as high as they would with slower growth.
However, generally, the quantity of these micronutrients and trace elements in the food crop is still higher, in absolute terms. In other words, if a doubling of CO2 results in a 30% increase in crop biomass, the increase in elements such as zinc, iron and copper might be only 20%, but still greater in terms of absolute quantity than in the crop grown without the increase in CO2.
A solution to this problem is not to reduce atmospheric CO2, nor to reduce the application of fertilizers so that crop growth is less, but to increase the application of the scarce minerals and trace elements such as magnesium, sulfur, boron, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and so on, if they are found to be lacking.
Another solution, which some farmers have already adopted, is to change farming techniques, avoid tilling the soil, which disrupts the natural biodiversity of the soil, and leave the residue of the previous crop in the soil, allowing it to gradually decompose and provide nutrients for the next crop.
No-till farming can also sequester carbon in the soil, so climate change alarmists should be overjoyed with this technique. ;D
"Climate change benefits
The benefits in reducing farming's global warming footprint are immense. Fuel costs saved by running the tractor less, one estimate suggests, no-till can reduce fuel usage by as much as 80 percent. In addition to the reduced carbon emissions from mechanical equipment used in no-till farming, there are several other benefits to the environment. No-till farming, often when paired with crop covering (a technique in which a crop is planted for the express purpose of soil health), reduces carbon emissions through greater sequestration of carbon dioxide by the soil. Over half of the potential carbon sequestration from farmlands comes from conservation tillage.
Carbon dioxide isn’t the only greenhouse gas reduced by no-till, the release of nitrous oxide, a very dangerous greenhouse gas, is also reduced through no-till. As more nitrogen is immobilized in the soil there is a reduced need for the application of nitrogen rich manure."
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/02/no-till-agriculture-offers-vast-sustainability-benefits-so-why-do-organic-farmers-reject-it/
-
... There have been a number of studies which suggest that the fruit and vegetables our grandfathers, or great grandfathers ate, had a much higher nutritional content...
When they had a chance to eat. Just ask the Irish.
-
Look out, RSL, here comes another chunk of sky falling down on all of us.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/antarctica-melting-faster-we-knew-here-s-what-it-will-ncna884636
-
Better get a boat, Peter. You can hide under it until the water arrives.
-
When they had a chance to eat. Just ask the Irish.
That's true, but let's not confuse two separate issues, Slobodan; the nutritional quality of the food and the distribution of the food.
The absurd notion, that seems to be suggested by the AGW alarmists, is that enhanced crop growth due to elevated levels of CO2 is to be avoided and that it is better to produce smaller quantities of food that might contain slightly higher nutrients, by removing the fertilization effect of CO2.
If one accepts that argument, then why not reduce the application of all fertilizers that are effective in enhancing crop growth. Worldwide food production might halve, the food would be more expensive but more nutritious, and there'd be a huge increase in the number of starving people.
That doesn't sound like a sensible idea. It would be far better to exploit the benefits of elevated levels of CO2, as we exploit the benefits of artificial fertilizers, and add the additional nutrients to the soil which are found to be lacking, and/or take vitamin supplements.
-
The absurd notion, that seems to be suggested by the AGW alarmists, is that enhanced crop growth due to elevated levels of CO2 is to be avoided and that it is better to produce smaller quantities of food that might contain slightly higher nutrients, by removing the fertilization effect of CO2.
Is anyone suggesting that? Or did you just invent it?
-
Is anyone suggesting that? Or did you just invent it?
My impression is there are lots of people who want to reduce CO2 levels despite the undeniable fact that elevated levels of CO2 enhance crop growth. Didn't you know that? ;)
The alarmists tend to present negative arguments that they hope will cancel the positive effects of increased crop growth, such as increased competition from increased weed growth, increased insect attacks, lower nutrition of the harvested crops, and so on.
-
My impression is there are lots of people who want to reduce CO2 levels despite the undeniable fact that elevated levels of CO2 enhance crop growth. Didn't you know that? ;)
Not the same thing.
-
My impression is there are lots of people who want to reduce CO2 levels despite the undeniable fact that elevated levels of CO2 enhance crop growth. Didn't you know that? ;)
Ray, I hate to keep calling you out about this statement but it bears repeating that enhanced plant growth is meaningless without improved nutrient production. We are not animals who can convert cellulose to sugar for further metabolism so if the plant growth is solely biomass it is near worthless to humans. Enhanced CO2 may also lead to increased growth of weeds that compete with food crops for nutrients and may necessitate increased use of herbicides. We know that CO2 is necessary for plant growth but in isolation, the statement that higher levels are good is near worthless.
-
Ray, I hate to keep calling you out about this statement but it bears repeating that enhanced plant growth is meaningless without improved nutrient production. We are not animals who can convert cellulose to sugar for further metabolism so if the plant growth is solely biomass it is near worthless to humans. Enhanced CO2 may also lead to increased growth of weeds that compete with food crops for nutrients and may necessitate increased use of herbicides. We know that CO2 is necessary for plant growth but in isolation, the statement that higher levels are good is near worthless.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
-
Is anyone suggesting that?...
Well, Jeremy, Alan G. just did: “... enhanced plant growth is meaningless...”
-
Are not most iPhones made in China?
Sure, some of the stuff they make is very good. They're stealing our designs and forcing companies who want to sell there to give them all their proprietary secrets and manufacturing prowess. But even with that, they make some shoddy stuff.
A Soviet communist once said the West will sell us the rope that we'll hang them with. It's actually worse than that with China. We're actually giving them the design so they can build the factory to make the rope they will hang us with.
We're real fools.
-
Ray, I hate to keep calling you out about this statement but it bears repeating that enhanced plant growth is meaningless without improved nutrient production.
Meaningless to AGW alarmists perhaps, but not meaningless to more rational and practical people. ;)
The nutritional value of food is far more influenced by the food processing industry than by modest increases in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and far more influenced by the type of farming techniques used and the soil quality, than by the levels of CO2.
I'll repeat, because you seem to have missed the point, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 increase both the quantity of biomass and the quantity of nutritional elements in the crops.
However, the increase in nutritional elements is not as great as the increase in biomass, unless greater quantities of those nutritional elements are added to the soil in order to reduce the dilution effect.
In other words, (in case some readers are having difficulty in grasping the point), if all conditions remain the same, the same amount of water used in the same type of soil with the same amount of artificial fertilizers applied, and the same temperatures and degree of sunlight, and so on, then increased levels of CO2 will tend to increase biomass at a greater rate than the increase in the uptake of nutritional elements. Got it?
We are not animals who can convert cellulose to sugar for further metabolism so if the plant growth is solely biomass it is near worthless to humans.
I wasn't aware that plants can grow without essential nutrients. Are you sure you know what you are talking about, Alan? ;)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition
"There are seventeen most important nutrients for plants. Plants must obtain the following mineral nutrients from their growing medium:-
the macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), carbon (C), oxygen(O), hydrogen (H)
the micronutrients (or trace minerals): iron (Fe), boron (B), chlorine (Cl), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni)"
There are other micronutrients which might not be essential for plant growth but are essential for the good health of humans. Selenium is one example. There are many crops that are claimed to be good sources of Selenium, such as Brazil Nuts, Brown Rice, Sunflower Seeds, Mushrooms, Spinach, Oatmeal.
If there is no Selenium in the soil, it will not prevent the above-mentioned plants from growing, so one can't be certain what the levels of selenium might be whenever one buys one of the above foods.
Enhanced CO2 may also lead to increased growth of weeds that compete with food crops for nutrients and may necessitate increased use of herbicides. We know that CO2 is necessary for plant growth but in isolation, the statement that higher levels are good is near worthless.
The are basically two types of plants, C3 and C4. Most food crops are C3. Most weeds are C4. C3 plants respond more to elevated levels of CO2. C4 plants respond less. Therefore, logically, weeds should be less of a problem in elevated levels of CO2, on average. Okay?
-
Ray, I hate to keep calling you out about this statement but it bears repeating that enhanced plant growth is meaningless without improved nutrient production. We are not animals who can convert cellulose to sugar for further metabolism so if the plant growth is solely biomass it is near worthless to humans. Enhanced CO2 may also lead to increased growth of weeds that compete with food crops for nutrients and may necessitate increased use of herbicides. We know that CO2 is necessary for plant growth but in isolation, the statement that higher levels are good is near worthless.
Are you saying that the nutritional value of my cupcakes is decreasing?
-
Well, Jeremy, Alan G. just did: “... enhanced plant growth is meaningless...”
Out of context quotations to make a point do not help one's credibility. Alan G. said more than the 5 words you quoted. So without context, your quoting of him is meaningless.
But by all means feel free to not contribute anything useful to the discussion. We live in a free society.
And now back to the topic of exchanging useful information, coming from a financial outlook:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/report-world-trending-to-hit-50-renewables-11-coal-by-2050/
"Report: World trending to hit 50% renewables, 11% coal by 2050
And falling battery costs are a big part of why. "
"The report also says that gas consumption will increase only very modestly. Gas use is projected to decline dramatically in Europe and increase in the US, China, and India. Everywhere, gas and batteries will play major roles in smoothing out the supply curves of renewable-heavy utilities."
In my country, the amount of money that's being restituted for surplus (delivered back to the grid) energy that's produced by Solar Energy PV's is going to be reduced. The reason is that these PVs are becoming so efficient (and energy conservation is improving at the same time) that they often start breaking-even in about 4 years instead of 7 years. This also sparks the need for renewal of the energy grid, because too much PV energy flowing back into the grid could otherwise cause shutdowns.
The role of conventional energy production is changing/shrinking to being more a source of peak energy supply (for when the wind doesn't blow and at night), so the need for natural gas is reducing. See attached graphics.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
"Report: World trending to hit 50% renewables, 11% coal by 2050
And falling battery costs are a big part of why. "
...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, That's great if it happens. No one, I don't believe, is suggesting we should continue to pollute the air, CO2 or not. And if that's the way the markets develop, more power to it. I have no interest in oil stocks. IF someone could figure out how to use water to power my car, it would be terrific.
The point that many are making is that government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy markets using regulations and tax subsidies that take money away from other important endeavors that may be more valuable. It also distorts markets and often defeats better solutions that would happen if the forces of a free market are allowed to play out.
-
Sure, some of the stuff they make is very good. They're stealing our designs and forcing companies who want to sell there to give them all their proprietary secrets and manufacturing prowess. But even with that, they make some shoddy stuff.
Every manufacturing country makes shoddy stuff. The American automobile industry got taken to the cleaners by Japan in the 1970s for just that reason. Americans now tend to prefer South Korean designed washers and dryers to American made ones because of innovation and quality. China has been in violation of intellectual property laws and that's being remedied through existing treaties and agreements and has been for several years. Lots of computer parts are manufactured in China to an extremely high quality standard and many process improvements came from work done on Chinese manufacturing lines.
-
... China has been in violation of intellectual property laws and that's being remedied through existing treaties and agreements and has been for several years. ...
Are you serious? China is stealing the world blind. Not only do they break into military and commercial secret sites to steal secrets, they force foreign companies to turn over all their design details if they want to do business in China.
-
Of course, while they're busy stealing and copying our designs, hopefully they're not on the leading edge of developing new and innovative products. So they'll always be behind the curve. In the meanwhile though, their factories are putting some of our factories out of business.
-
... "Report: World trending to hit 50% renewables, 11% coal by 2050...
And who has ever been against it?
-
The are basically two types of plants, C3 and C4. Most food crops are C3. Most weeds are C4. C3 plants respond more to elevated levels of CO2. C4 plants respond less. Therefore, logically, weeds should be less of a problem in elevated levels of CO2, on average. Okay?
No, weird logic is not okay.
Weeds will prevent/inhibit growth of other plant material. It's irrelevant that in isolation they might respond slower to elevated CO2 levels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of course, while they're busy stealing and copying our designs, hopefully they're not on the leading edge of developing new and innovative products. So they'll always be behind the curve. In the meanwhile though, their factories are putting some of our factories out of business.
They are already ahead in compact battery production, Elon Musk not withstanding. Berkshire-Hathaway has a big investment in a Chinese battery company. They are also on the cutting edge of electric vehicles. A lot of their factories that are putting ours out of business are from US based companies shifting manufacturing over there!
-
... A lot of their factories that are putting ours out of business are from US based companies shifting manufacturing over there!
That's the problem. When companies shift over there to manufacture, China forces them to provide all their secret manufacturing processes to China. Then they use that info to start their own manufacturing companies. Then they put our companies over here out of business. We don't do that to foreign companies working here. Just like their higher tariffs, they're screwing us. The administration is trying to fight back. Even if you don't like the president, why not support a policy that helps America? How would you feel if your company went to China and closed down operations here?
-
No, weird logic is not okay.
Weeds will prevent/inhibit growth of other plant material. It's irrelevant that in isolation they might respond slower to elevated CO2 levels.
Cheers,
Bart
Of course weeds can inhibit the growth of other plants that we find useful, such as food crops. That's why they are called weeds. A weed is a plant we have no use for.
All forms of life compete for resources as they grow and multiply.
The issue is, will increased levels of CO2 give weeds a competitive advantage? What types of plants respond most to increases in CO2 levels?
If it is true that most food crops are of the C3 variety, and most weeds are of the C4 variety, which is what I understand to be the case (but I could be wrong), then it logically follows that generally, and on average, weeds are unlikely to become more of a problem as a result of increased CO2 levels.
However, weeds will still be a problem. CO2 is not the only factor which controls plant growth, just as CO2 is not the only factor which affects climate.
If a farmer is growing a C4 type crop, such as corn or sugarcane, in an area where C3 types of weeds flourish, then enhanced levels of CO2 could logically make the problem of weeds worse, unless successful countermeasures are taken.
The following article explains the situation. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/two-rival-kinds-of-plants-and-their-future/
"So whereas rising temperatures benefit C4, rising carbon-dioxide levels do not. In fact, C3 plants get a greater boost from high carbon dioxide levels than C4. Nearly 500 separate experiments confirm that if carbon-dioxide levels roughly double from preindustrial levels, rice and wheat yields will be on average 36% and 33% higher, while corn yields will increase by only 24%.
Another complication is that C4 has a larger share of the market in weeds. Of the 18 most pestilential weeds that trouble farmers, 14 are C4. So, all else being equal, and especially in temperate regions where C3 crops dominate, the battle against weeds should get easier as carbon dioxide levels rise-because C3 crops can accelerate their growth more than C4 weeds can.
Last year, Qing Zeng of the Institute of Soil Science in Nanjing and his colleagues published the first test of this prediction on a real farm. By emitting carbon dioxide over plots of rice, they enriched the air to almost twice the ambient level of CO2. They then measured the growth rate of both rice and its worst weed, barnyard grass (a C4 plant), in the experimental plots, compared with control plots nearby.
The ear weight of the rice was enhanced by 37.6% while the growth of the barnyard grass was actually reduced by 47.9%, because the vigorous rice shaded out the weeds. So the good news is that rising carbon-dioxide levels are, on balance, slightly helping crops (mostly C3) compete against weeds (mostly C4) rather than vice versa."
However, I do understand that there are many complicated interacting factors that affect plant growth, such as temperature, amount of sunlight, amount of water, microbial content of the soil, amounts and types of fertilizers present in the soil, and so on, and sometimes these other factors might result in a C4 type of weed out-competing a C3 type of crop.
My point is that generally, on average, on a world-wide scale, it is more likely that increased CO2 levels will help to reduce the problem of weeds rather than increase the problem.
-
Ray, maybe you can answer these regarding how increased CO2 effects plants growth and nutricious value in the food and how it effect total CO2 in the air.
IS CO2 a catalyst that allows the food to grow more by extracting the additional growth from the land and air?
Would this account why the nutrients begin to decrease because there are only so much of it in the soil so relative to total food production, the nutrient percent total in the food is less?
Or does CO2 go into the plant in it's actual makeup or maybe just stripping the carbon from CO2 which is why it plants also act as a carbon sink?
Or does all happen?
-
West Antarctic rising could halt melting glaciers. Then again, it could get worse.
https://www.axios.com/west-antarctica-rising-could-halt-melting-glaciers-325bec72-e20e-47d1-bb5f-2e1d2f9f4857.html
-
That's the problem. When companies shift over there to manufacture, China forces them to provide all their secret manufacturing processes to China. Then they use that info to start their own manufacturing companies. Then they put our companies over here out of business. We don't do that to foreign companies working here. Just like their higher tariffs, they're screwing us. The administration is trying to fight back. Even if you don't like the president, why not support a policy that helps America? How would you feel if your company went to China and closed down operations here?
Those are your favourite "market forces" at work, Alan. Those companies didn't move their factories to China because it felt good. They did it because they could make more money.
That's just capitalism. Unregulated capitalism.
-
Those are your favourite "market forces" at work, Alan. Those companies didn't move their factories to China because it felt good. They did it because they could make more money.
That's just capitalism. Unregulated capitalism.
...and China stole their secrets of manufacturing. The companies were short-sighted and didn't care about the long term effect. You don't give away your family jewels. Stupid. What good is it if a few years down the road, China now out manufacturers you and you lose everything? I'm not sure how other governments can prevent Chinese larceny. They're doing it to companies in many countries. Maybe you have a good idea.
-
IS CO2 a catalyst that allows the food to grow more by extracting the additional growth from the land and air?
Alan,
As I understand, plants extract CO2 from the atmosphere as their own food, and convert that food to glucose and carbohydrates through the process of photosynthesis, using sunlight, and water from the soil.
Would this account why the nutrients begin to decrease because there are only so much of it in the soil so relative to total food production, the nutrient percent total in the food is less?
This appears to be the case. I imagine if plant growth were increased due to the application of more water and more nitrogen fertilizer, without any increase in CO2 levels, the nutrient percentage in the plant would also decline.
Or does CO2 go into the plant in it's actual makeup or maybe just stripping the carbon from CO2 which is why it plants also act as a carbon sink?
As I understand, both plants and soil act as a carbon sink. The oxygen in our atmosphere is basically a waste product from the photosynthetic conversion of CO2 as food for plants, and for autotrophic bacteria such as cyanobacteria. Billions of years ago, there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere.
Plants expire oxygen as a waste product, but love CO2. We humans love oxygen, rely upon plants for our survival, but expire CO2 as a waste product, which is probably why so many people find it easy to demonize CO2 and call it a pollutant. ;D
-
Ray, I think I recall reading once that plants use oxygen at night. Is that true and what effect on the atmosphere, CO2, global warming, etc would that have?
-
Ray, maybe you can answer these regarding how increased CO2 effects plants growth and nutricious value in the food and how it effect total CO2 in the air.
IS CO2 a catalyst that allows the food to grow more by extracting the additional growth from the land and air?
No, CO2 is merely taken up by the plant and converted to sugar which is then further metabolized to compounds found within the plant and seeds which are needed for propogation.
Would this account why the nutrients begin to decrease because there are only so much of it in the soil so relative to total food production, the nutrient percent total in the food is less?
plants require usable nitrogen to make amino acids that are the building blocks of proteins and numerous trace minerals that enzymes use to catalyze various reactions or are part of oxidation/reduction reactions. Some nutrients are present in the soil at sufficient amounts and others (most notably nitrogen fertilizers) need to be added.
Or does CO2 go into the plant in it's actual makeup or maybe just stripping the carbon from CO2 which is why it plants also act as a carbon sink?
the majority of CO2 goes into cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin production which are the structural building blocks of the plant/tree. Without these compounds plants/trees could not stand upright.
-
Tesla to shut solar plants: Reuters
Tesla will shutter some of the solar businesses it bought a few years ago, reports Reuters, after the electric carmaker announced it was cutting 9% of its workforce. Tesla bought SolarCity — which produces residential solar systems and batteries — two years ago for $2.6 billion. Approximately a dozen facilities in nine states will now be closed.
-
What's happening to their solar roofs? The article doesn't mention it. I know I thought they were too expensive in previous posts. The whole things is bad though because it's an American company. I'd like it to do good. When I was in Home Depot a few months ago, a salesman came over to sell me solar for my house. I'm not spending enough on electricity so he disappeared. I didn't realize he was selling Tesla solar.
https://in.reuters.com/article/netflix-moves/netflix-communication-head-quits-over-insensitive-comment-idINKBN1JI2XR
-
Ray, I think I recall reading once that plants use oxygen at night. Is that true and what effect on the atmosphere, CO2, global warming, etc would that have?
Yes. I believe that's true. Most plants do need oxygen at night. However, I think it's also true that, in general, they expire or release more oxygen than they take up, so plants are a major source of the oxygen that we humans need to breathe and survive.
We should be grateful and give the plants the CO2 that they love. ;D
-
...
We should be grateful and give the plants the CO2 that they love. ;D
Yes, tomorrow, first thing, I'm going out and hug one of my plants in the yard to let them know I care. They certainly haven't looked too good lately.
-
Yes, tomorrow, first thing, I'm going out and hug one of my plants in the yard to let them know I care. They certainly haven't looked too good lately.
Won't do any good. Plants are not silly. ;D They need water, lots of CO2, and a number of essential elements, as explained in the following article.
https://www.maximumyield.com/the-full-menu/2/977
-
Won't do any good. Plants are not silly. ;D They need water, lots of CO2, and a number of essential elements, as explained in the following article.
https://www.maximumyield.com/the-full-menu/2/977
Too complicated. I'll stick to hugging. :)
-
Keep it going, guys. We're setting new records daily for head rattles.
-
Keep it going, guys. We're setting new records daily for head rattles.
We don't have to, you are doing all the head rattling for the rest of us.
-
Keep it going, guys. We're setting new records daily for head rattles.
Head rattles? Could it be the effect of elevated CO2 levels?
Excess CO2 is known to negatively impact learning abilities ..., but head rattles?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Could be, Bart.
Cheers
-
One of the interesting things in the Nature paper this week was the differential impact of gravitational pull from the ice sheet in Antarctica. Loss of ice reduces the weight of the continent and as a result 'may' lead to a 25% increase in water levels in the northern hemisphere
-
No, it'll probably lead to a reversal of the earth, so what's now the south pole will become the north pole. That's at least as likely as the epeiric seas returning soon enough for any of us to worry about it. Actually, Alan, you really should rush out and buy a boat -- maybe build an ark.
-
Actually, Alan, you really should rush out and buy a boat
Well done Russ, first sound advice.
-- maybe build an ark.
and then you spoil it again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, Bart, Alan is so worried about all this that he probably ought to build a boat large enough that when the flood comes he can rescue all the folks on LuLa worried sick about global warming (or, since no such thing really seems to be happening, "climate change"). That's a lot of folks and elephants and bears and giraffes and . . . Oh, dogs. Lots of dogs and cats.
When I was a kid I spent my summers on a Michigan lake. Down in a corner of the lake was a boat: Bert Buell's boat. It was a houseboat Bert had built himself. Maybe Bert was as worried about the return of epeiric seas as Alan is. In any case, for at least fifteen years Bert Buell's boat sat there and never went anywhere. And the epeiric seas never returned during that whole period. And that's probably what would happen to Alan's boat. But at least he'd be ready.
-
One of the interesting things in the Nature paper this week was the differential impact of gravitational pull from the ice sheet in Antarctica. Loss of ice reduces the weight of the continent and as a result 'may' lead to a 25% increase in water levels in the northern hemisphere
From my understanding you'ld have to know the exact volume of water the melting ice sheets release into the ocean from on land compared to the exact combined total of ocean water volume of the entire globe. Then you'ld have to establish an agreed starting sea level measuring point of shore line land elevation to sea level AT THE SHORELINE which will be the only way to know for sure sea levels are rising not due to lunar tidal influences.
You're trying to measure the movement of huge volumes of water (influenced by gravity) across the entire globe and there isn't enough precision available to attribute causality for A/B shoreline changes due to sea level rises.
Note my little illustration showing how I understand how water moves across the globe according to the laws of gravity. Tell me where I'm misunderstanding this.
-
No, Bart, Alan is so worried about all this that he probably ought to build a boat large enough that when the flood comes he can rescue all the folks on LuLa worried sick about global warming (or, since no such thing really seems to be happening, "climate change"). That's a lot of folks and elephants and bears and giraffes and . . . Oh, dogs. Lots of dogs and cats.
When I was a kid I spent my summers on a Michigan lake. Down in a corner of the lake was a boat: Bert Buell's boat. It was a houseboat Bert had built himself. Maybe Bert was as worried about the return of epeiric seas as Alan is. In any case, for at least fifteen years Bert Buell's boat sat there and never went anywhere. And the epeiric seas never returned during that whole period. And that's probably what would happen to Alan's boat. But at least he'd be ready.
I am just quoting a scientific study and you raise some more phony issues and worthless posts. If you don't like a post, refute it with some facts and not just troll posts that are directed at me. If you want me to call you out on it every time I will do so. BTW, I'm well above sea level where I live so I'm not terribly worried about how much the ocean rises.
-
Note my little illustration showing how I understand how water moves across the globe according to the laws of gravity. Tell me where I'm misunderstanding this.
Google is your friend: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/antarctic-ice-sheet-gravitational-effect-sea-level/
-
Google is your friend: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/question/antarctic-ice-sheet-gravitational-effect-sea-level/
Alan, I didn't find any information in that linked article that explained how scientists or any researcher can accurately determine the cause of sea level rises not knowing the exact volume of water in all of Earth's oceans. The target is too big to measure due to too many variables.
But thanks for the very interesting linked article.
-
Head rattles? Could it be the effect of elevated CO2 levels?
Excess CO2 is known to negatively impact learning abilities ..., but head rattles?
Cheers,
Bart
Now that could be a further explanation for the irrational alarmism about Anthropogenic Global Warming. ;D
I've often thought it must be due to a type of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). However, a contributing factor could be the elevated levels of CO2 in the offices and laboratories where most people work.
The levels of CO2 that people exhale as a waste product, is far greater than the amount we inhale. Unless there is adequate ventilation in work places and homes, which there often isn't, people will be exposed to far higher levels of CO2 than exist outside in the natural environment.
-
Alan, I didn't find any information in that linked article that explained how scientists or any researcher can accurately determine the cause of sea level rises not knowing the exact volume of water in all of Earth's oceans. The target is too big to measure due to too many variables.
Hi Tim,
I think that scientists who specialize in oceanography have a decent idea about the amount of water on our planet.
However, the challenge is in figuring out the amount/mass of water that's in a frozen state on land. That's the amount that would be added to the water volume, plus that the land will rebound locally without the ice mass weighing it down thus leaving less room for water.
Add to that that water is at its densest at 4 degrees Celsius, so there will also be thermal expansion of that volume. In addition, white ice/snow surfaces reflect sunlight, but the darker landmass and water will absorb more heat and accelerate the warming.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am just quoting a scientific study and you raise some more phony issues and worthless posts. If you don't like a post, refute it with some facts and not just troll posts that are directed at me. If you want me to call you out on it every time I will do so. BTW, I'm well above sea level where I live so I'm not terribly worried about how much the ocean rises.
Well, Alan, I raised a true history of a situation just as "scientific" as your study. Glad to hear you're well above sea level, but if we get the "25% increase in water level" you mentioned you're probably going to need at least a boat, if not an ark. The only thing posing as a "fact" in your post is your statement (taken from a "paper") that "Loss of ice reduces the weight of the continent and as a result 'may' lead to a 25% increase in water levels in the northern hemisphere." That's not a "fact." It's what in the military we used to call a "WAG," otherwise known as a wild-assed guess.
-
There is no such things as "...a 25% increase in water levels in the northern hemisphere..." That sound horrible. Does that mean that if the depth is 1000 feet, the ocean level will rise 25% or 250 feet?
Of course not, but 25% sounds pretty bad. I believe they meant to say that whatever the increase is around the world, it would be 25% higher. So if it goes up 4" around the world, then in the north it would go up to 5". Now that doesn't sound so bad.
-
Russ and Alan win. You have convinced me despite my best efforts to just post articles that it's just not worth it. Enjoy your stay on the Coffee Corner with the knowledge that Jeremy won't have to pester me any longer. I wish I could say it has been fun but that would really be fake news.
Good by and good luck. It's over and out now.
-
Hi Tim,
I think that scientists who specialize in oceanography have a decent idea about the amount of water on our planet.
However, the challenge is in figuring out the amount/mass of water that's in a frozen state on land. That's the amount that would be added to the water volume, plus that the land will rebound locally without the ice mass weighing it down thus leaving less room for water.
Add to that that water is at its densest at 4 degrees Celsius, so there will also be thermal expansion of that volume. In addition, white ice/snow surfaces reflect sunlight, but the darker landmass and water will absorb more heat and accelerate the warming.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I don't believe any oceanographer or scientist can measure exactly the amount of water in all the oceans on the planet considering constantly changing amounts of deposits from rainfall, rivers on land and underground aquifers. Some ocean areas are at least a mile deep and unexplored for measuring water amounts below the sea bottom.
Precision is needed seeing we can emulate quite precisely an extremely scaled down model of an ice cube placed in a glass of water often mentioned in the media as an example to explain displacement and expansion from melting ice caps. It's easy to measure weight, volume and dimensions of the water, the glass and the ice cube with a bit of math. But to scale up that model to global size leaves out way too much data known and unknown on an enormous scale in order to accurately trace back sea level rise causality across the globe.
Einstein used established building blocks of known data concerning constant conditions within the universe to formulate his theories as well as his thought experiments.
Measuring conditions that cause sea level rise is not a theoretical endeavor but yet we don't employ the same precision as Einstein where quite a few of his theories have been proven true.
I'm still not convinced we can accurately trace back causality of sea level rise to just one thing such as melting ice caps.
-
Russ and Alan win. You have convinced me despite my best efforts to just post articles that it's just not worth it. Enjoy your stay on the Coffee Corner with the knowledge that Jeremy won't have to pester me any longer. I wish I could say it has been fun but that would really be fake news.
Good by and good luck. It's over and out now.
Well, I'm glad Jeremy won't be pestering you any longer, Alan, in spite of your "best efforts." And it's good of you not to post fake news.
:o
-
Russ and Alan win. You have convinced me despite my best efforts to just post articles that it's just not worth it. Enjoy your stay on the Coffee Corner with the knowledge that Jeremy won't have to pester me any longer. I wish I could say it has been fun but that would really be fake news.
Good by and good luck. It's over and out now.
Quite a good example of how complete and utterly garbage, repeated over and over by people with a political agenda but no understanding of the actual issue will drown out rational debate and install their nonsense as "truth". Now where else are we seeing that...?
-
Quite a good example of how complete and utterly garbage, repeated over and over by people with a political agenda but no understanding of the actual issue will drown out rational debate and install their nonsense as "truth". Now where else are we seeing that...?
Right, Jeremy, but you have to understand, this is the only thing the left can do. They don't grasp the actual issues, and if one of them actually grasps an issue he hasn't the foggiest idea what do do about it. It's all rote, echoed back from the playbook put out by the "media."
-
"There's a compelling reason scientists think we've never found aliens, and it suggests humans are already going extinct"
Yup. You got it. No Martians to take to our leader because of human created climate change.
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-great-filter-fermi-paradox-aliens-2017-7
-
As a leftist I liked the old leftist priority that demanded corporations stop polluting the air, land and water.
This climate change redirect as the new priority makes me sad and frustrated because it's such a huge target to overcome I don't see an end in sight.
At least with pollution I can sea a piece of land returned to its pristine condition, the air not making me want to hold my nose and force me to breath through my mouth and water that doesn't taste or smell odd.
Those were good times and honorable and doable goals.
-
Yes, it's a sad, sad world, Tim. Leftism isn't what it used to be. It's become a lot more vicious.
-
(The left) They don't grasp the actual issues, and if one of them actually grasps an issue he hasn't the foggiest idea what do do about it. It's all rote, echoed back from the playbook put out by the "media."
Right. Got it. Leftists are all idiots because they believe what they read, see and hear every day everywhere except on Fox News and Breitbart.
-
Yes, it's a sad, sad world, Tim. Leftism isn't what it used to be. It's become a lot more vicious.
Charlottesville.
Tossing paper towels at hurricane victims.
Using separation of families as deterrence.
-
Charlottesville.
Tossing paper towels at hurricane victims.
Using separation of families as deterrence.
But Trump seems to be clumsily redefining leftist perceptions of right wing conservatism to make Republicans look cartoonish in order to get a lot of media attention or to just screw with our heads. It almost seems like he's distorting the traditional old style of governance and the Presidency to force us to view it through the lens of a reality TV show. A lot of his antics are so over the top tone deaf that it's becoming something more than what appears on the surface.
There's no consequences. No one is permanently damaged physically by what he does. I mean Melania wearing that coat with the statement..."I don't care. Do You?"...WTF?! Nothing rattles Trump except separating children from their illegal immigrant parents. He's getting far more media attention than Obama or any former President on immigration laws. That's a good thing. Were Ellis Island immigrants considered illegal when they got off the ship?
This is the first I've ever seen a standing US President act this way that I'm beginning to think maybe he just wants everyone to stop making such a big deal about every little move wrong or right a President makes isn't so politically Earth shattering. End the politically driven decisiveness and start fixing problems.
-
I've been trying for some time to understand the psychology of apparently intelligent people who seem to accept so readily that the very small percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere, currently around 404 parts per million, could be a serious threat to the climate and our future well-being.
Those who have a basic understanding of science must surely appreciate that the enormous complexity and chaotic nature of our ecosystems, weather patterns and climate, and particularly the long periods of time involved before climate-change trends become apparent, make any sound predictions of future climate, outside the scope of the scientific methodology.
However, I'm not advocating that we shouldn't at least try to understand the processes that affect climate, even though it's too difficult to be certain about the role of one particular factor, such as a small increase in atmospheric CO2.
I recently came across the following scholarly paper which discusses the issue from a cultural perspective. Access is free.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2008.00266.x
I'll quote a few selected paragraphs to give you an idea of the issues addressed.
"Abstract
We are living in a climate of fear about our future climate. The language of the public discourse around global warming routinely uses a repertoire which includes words such as ‘catastrophe’, ‘terror’, ‘danger’, ‘extinction’ and ‘collapse’. To help make sense of this phenomenon, the story of the complex relationships between climates and cultures in different times and in different places is in urgent need of telling. If we can understand from the past something of this complex interweaving of our ideas of climate with their physical and cultural settings, we may be better placed to prepare for different configurations of this relationship in the future."
"Conventional attempts at conquering the climatic future all rely, implicitly or explicitly, upon ideas of control and mastery, whether of the planet, of global governance or of individual and collective behaviour. These attempts at ‘engineering’ future climate seem a degree utopian and brash. Understanding the cultural dimensions of climate discourses offers a different way of thinking about how we navigate the climatic future."
"Climate has always carried a precarious and ambiguous meaning for humans. Our physical evolution was forged through amplitudes of climate change – through dangerous encounters with climate – unknown to modern humans, while our cultural evolution has involved a variety of ways of mythologizing and taming the out‐workings of Nature's climate. The trail of the flood myth, for example, can be traced through many early cultures, most notably in the mono‐theistic tradition of the Biblical Flood of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The intimacy of relationship between culture and climate is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of Egypt and the Nile. The climatic pulsing of the river through annual and seven‐yearly cycles gave – and still gives – life, sustenance, shape and meaning to Nilotic cultures."
"Climate as judgement
Experiences of extreme weather have long been interpreted by individuals and cultures as signifiers of divine blessing or judgement (Glacken 1967; Boia 2005). The relationship between God and climate, especially drought, portrayed in the early Jewish scriptures makes very clear this particular reading of weather extremes, an interpretation of the capriciousness of climate that remained dominant in Western Europe through the later Middle Ages and well into the early modern period."
"Climate as pathology
The sustained European encounter with the tropics started in the sixteenth century and grew steadily during the imperial adventures of the nineteenth century. The experience of climates novel to Europeans was central to this encounter. Whilst these experiences laid to rest the classical fears of the torrid zone inducing human mutations, a new climatic pathology – a sense of the abnormal – was substituted. This pathology has been most clearly articulated using the lens of Victorian Britain and Empire by the cultural geographer David Livingstone in a series of articles over the last 20 years. Livingstone argues that the novel tropical climates encountered through European exploration and settlement, exactly because of their novelty and ‘otherness’, took on a pathological form. Attachments of fear, danger and foreboding to these climates easily followed, sentiments which had both physical and moral dimensions. In contrast to earlier pre‐Enlightenment narratives of fear about climate which arose from unknown causes, this new mentality was promoted through a fear of unknown climatic places."
"Climate as catastrophe
This brings us to an examination of our third discourse of fear and danger surrounding climate – the increasingly dominant portrayal of anthropogenic global climate change, or its avatar ‘global warming’, as global catastrophe. The early identification of the prospective human warming of global climate through releases of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was rarely viewed as dangerous but, predominantly, as benign or beneficial. Thus, Arrhenius, writing in 1906, was able to state that global warming would allow future populations: 'to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."
"The contemporary discourse of climate catastrophe may also be tapping into a deeper and non‐negotiable human anxiety about the future, an anxiety which is merely attaching itself at the current time to the portended climates of the future – future climates offered up to society by the predictive claims of science. Science has never before offered such putative knowledge of the far future, complete with uncertainty ranges, tipping points and probabilities, and so our fragile and nervous human psyche has latched onto such pronouncements with vigour. ‘Today our expertise and our worries turn towards the weather because our industrious know‐how is acting, perhaps catastrophically, on global nature. Climate change provides a conduit, a lightening rod, for materialising our immaterial angst. Yearley (2006) explores these ‘phenomenology of nature’ worries as exemplified in Bill McKibbin's classic book The end of nature (McKibbin 1989), and as more recently articulated in Jules Pretty's series of essays, The Earth Only Endures."
I hope this post will help to clarify the issue for many readers.
-
I've been trying for some time to understand the psychology of apparently intelligent people who seem to accept so readily that the very small percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere, currently around 404 parts per million, could be a serious threat to the climate and our future well-being.
It has nothing to do with science, Ray, and everything to do with politics.
-
But Trump seems to be clumsily redefining leftist perceptions of right wing conservatism to make Republicans look cartoonish in order to get a lot of media attention or to just screw with our heads. It almost seems like he's distorting the traditional old style of governance and the Presidency to force us to view it through the lens of a reality TV show. A lot of his antics are so over the top tone deaf that it's becoming something more than what appears on the surface.
There's no consequences. No one is permanently damaged physically by what he does. I mean Melania wearing that coat with the statement..."I don't care. Do You?"...WTF?! Nothing rattles Trump except separating children from their illegal immigrant parents. He's getting far more media attention than Obama or any former President on immigration laws. That's a good thing. Were Ellis Island immigrants considered illegal when they got off the ship?
This is the first I've ever seen a standing US President act this way that I'm beginning to think maybe he just wants everyone to stop making such a big deal about every little move wrong or right a President makes isn't so politically Earth shattering. End the politically driven decisiveness and start fixing problems.
Maybe. That's a charitable point of view. Your last point is especially interesting, but there may be unintended (or intended) consequences anyway. It's possible to have a less benign view (https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/a-government-takeover-by-the-ku-klux-klan (https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/a-government-takeover-by-the-ku-klux-klan)), i.e., bad things can happen when you let repulsive or (just dumb) ideas loose. His bizarre trade war has real-world effects, as seen by Harley-Davidson's decision to possibly move production to other countries. I would not have thought that's what his base voted for.
One of http://thehill.com (http://thehill.com) or http://politico.com (http://politico.com) (can't remember which) runs an occasional piece with titles like "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking", which is usually very interesting.
You made a point in a previous post about being uncomfortable with worrying about anthropogenic climate effects to the detriment of something we could do something about, like pollution. Like the economy in general, I don't believe that fixing problems is a zero-sum game. We can fix more than one problem at a time. But I do understand your concern on the pollution front. I still hear noises about relaxing pollution controls on automobiles to reduce "costs", a notion I personally find very bizarre (as a former motorsport participant) because the quality, reliability and performance of our cars have improved tremendously since adopting "clean air" regulations. Everyone has benefitted from that, not just "lefties". Why anyone would want to dial those back is hard for me to understand. As an another example, why is deregulation in the coal industry seen as a good thing? Black lung diseases is making a comeback, what's the upside of that. Is our (the royal we, I'm Canadian) culture really so self-centred that so long as OTHER people are dying we're ok with it as long as it improves our export stats.
-
But Trump seems to be clumsily redefining leftist perceptions of right wing conservatism to make Republicans look cartoonish in order to get a lot of media attention or to just screw with our heads. It almost seems like he's distorting the traditional old style of governance and the Presidency to force us to view it through the lens of a reality TV show. A lot of his antics are so over the top tone deaf that it's becoming something more than what appears on the surface.
There's no consequences. No one is permanently damaged physically by what he does. I mean Melania wearing that coat with the statement..."I don't care. Do You?"...WTF?! Nothing rattles Trump except separating children from their illegal immigrant parents. He's getting far more media attention than Obama or any former President on immigration laws. That's a good thing. Were Ellis Island immigrants considered illegal when they got off the ship?
This is the first I've ever seen a standing US President act this way that I'm beginning to think maybe he just wants everyone to stop making such a big deal about every little move wrong or right a President makes isn't so politically Earth shattering. End the politically driven decisiveness and start fixing problems.
Trump has no shame. I agree with you on that. He also has a lot of courage or doesn't give a damn about re-election or figures that it's more important to get things done the way he wants rather than just cozying up to the political class and getting pats on the back (notwithstanding his apparent need for plaudits.). Most politicians would back off when they come under such enormous heat. He relishes in it. Maybe because he's been a businessman all his life, already made his mark, and not in politics where talking out of both sides of your mouth is a favorite pastime.
But the things he's doing are not haphazard. Basically, he's carrying out what he said he would do during the campaign - very refreshing from a politician. Since this is about climate change, I'll only mention related issues. He said during the campaign that the Paris Accord was tilted against America and would damage the American taxpayer. So he pulled out. He said we have to cut regulations to help American coal, oil and gas carbon producers and open up other sources like off shore drilling. He said he would re-start the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. So that's what he did. He said that the EPA was tilted toward climate change beliefs that were hurting us and should be changed. So when he because president, he put in Pruitt in charge and started the reversal of many EPA policies.
If you cut through all the media chatter, he's simply and clearly carrying out policies he said he would do. His detractors may not like his policies, but the roadmap is available from the campaign.
-
It has nothing to do with science, Ray, and everything to do with politics.
Depending on our own invincibility, self-reliance and intellect, we've also lost our trust in God to care for us.
-
... the quality, reliability and performance of our cars have improved tremendously since adopting "clean air" regulations.
"since" does not mean "because of".
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png)
Jeremy
-
"since" does not mean "because of".
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png)
Jeremy
Modern engine electronic controls were introduced primarily because it was the best way of controlling engines in such a way to make them pollute less. It was also cheaper to build engines that way. As a happy consequence of that we have better cars. Of course better quality control played a role. But I don't it's correct to imply that there exists merely a correlation between anti-pollution efforts and better performance. They are not just points on a graph.
-
Modern engine electronic controls were introduced primarily because it was the best way of controlling engines in such a way to make them pollute less. ...
German car manufacturers used modern electronic computers to hide the fact their diesel engines were polluting more. You just can't trust machines any more. Or statistics.
-
German car manufacturers used modern electronic computers to hide the fact their diesel engines were polluting more. You just can't trust machines any more. Or statistics.
Cute, but the air in our cities is much better than it was and there are way more cars on the road now. Way more.
It's ok to admit that modern cars are better, guys, you won't get thrown out of your tribe if you say so. Or do you think it's fake news? :)
You know how you always look for both sides in the climate control debate, that maybe warming (even though it may not exist) might actually be good. I suggest that you look again at the industries set up to develop clean air and water technologies. Maybe there are two sides to that issue too. Maybe the various solutions they develop may cost more to implement at first, but that they will have long-term benefits. Try to look at both sides, just saying. ;)
-
Cute, but the air in our cities is much better than it was and there are way more cars on the road now. Way more.
It's ok to admit that modern cars are better, guys, you won't get thrown out of your tribe if you say so. Or do you think it's fake news? :)
You know how you always look for both sides in the climate control debate, that maybe warming (even though it may not exist) might actually be good. I suggest that you look again at the industries set up to develop clean air and water technologies. Maybe there are two sides to that issue too. Maybe the various solutions they develop may cost more to implement at first, but that they will have long-term benefits. Try to look at both sides, just saying. ;)
I think there's been a lot of good from regulation and just plain modern developments that have improved not only how cars operate, their reliability, but also they run cleaner and more efficiently. Outside of battery problems, which is really maintenance not repairs, I can't remember the last time I had a problem with my cars.
My "cute" joke about diesels was just a "dig" at Germany who complains about American's supposed ignorance and care about pollution. Meanwhile, they're lying to and polluting the whole world and cheating everyone. Most people don't realize the most of the cleaner air push with cars came from America, specifically California. They had a huge smog problem in Los Angeles and elsewhere due to autos. They passed very stringent regulations that forced the American manufacturers and subsequently foreign manufacturers to start producing cleaner running autos. Otherwise, their cars couldn't be sold there. Every year Americans have to get their existing old cars inspected to pass stringent pollution tests before they can get approved to be driven on the roads. Americans like to breathe too.
-
...It's ok to admit that modern cars are better, guys, you won't get thrown out of your tribe if you say so. Or do you think it's fake news? :)...
No, we think it is a straw man.
-
Modern engine electronic controls were introduced primarily because it was the best way of controlling engines in such a way to make them pollute less. It was also cheaper to build engines that way. As a happy consequence of that we have better cars. Of course better quality control played a role. But I don't it's correct to imply that there exists merely a correlation between anti-pollution efforts and better performance. They are not just points on a graph. [emphasis added]
Are you seriously suggesting that manufacturers would not have adopted a cheaper method of building engines in the absence of pollution legislation?
German car manufacturers used modern electronic computers to hide the fact their diesel engines were polluting more.
No, not "polluting more" if by that you mean having higher emissions than earlier engines. Just polluting more than they were legally allowed to pollute. There's a difference.
Jeremy
-
Good grief, Jeremy, do you really mean to suggest bringing logic into this "discussion?"
-
"Uncle."
It's entirely a coincidence that modern day cars are better.
-
By polluting "more" I meant more than people assumed was happening on the newer engines. They actually were putting 40x more than they were suppose too or claimed.
-
Good grief, Jeremy, do you really mean to suggest bringing logic into this "discussion?"
Sorry, Russ. Fair point.
"Uncle."
It's entirely a coincidence that modern day cars are better.
Uncle?
By polluting "more" I meant more than people assumed was happening on the newer engines. They actually were putting 40x more than they were suppose to or claimed.
Rather less, I think: 5-15x or 10-20x, depending on model.
Jeremy
-
...
Rather less, I think: 5-15x or 10-20x, depending on model.
Jeremy
Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm breathing better already. :)
-
Cute, but the air in our cities is much better than it was and there are way more cars on the road now. Way more.
It's ok to admit that modern cars are better, guys, you won't get thrown out of your tribe if you say so. Or do you think it's fake news? :)
You know how you always look for both sides in the climate control debate, that maybe warming (even though it may not exist) might actually be good. I suggest that you look again at the industries set up to develop clean air and water technologies. Maybe there are two sides to that issue too. Maybe the various solutions they develop may cost more to implement at first, but that they will have long-term benefits. Try to look at both sides, just saying. ;)
I agree with you about cars better at emitting less pollution. But now a lot of this is being controlled more and more by software as Alan pointed out about German made cars which I'ld also extend to American made models as well.
I"m more afraid of software in modern cars today than I am in my '92 Nissan Sentra's computer module to the point I'm fending off buying any used vehicle that was made after 2001 which is around the time Nissan switched from cabled throttle to "Fly By Wire" software regulated remote throttle control in all their models. Not sure about when the other brands did the same. Now a modern car's software can kill if it hasn't been updated.
https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1116912_fca-tells-4-8m-vehicle-owners-to-stop-using-cruise-control-until-software-fix
My '92 Nissan Sentra's exhaust still smells wonderful compared to any year made American Chevy, Dodge or Ford truck which I have to role up my windows to avoid getting a headache from their exhaust at stop lights.
I just replaced my entire engine cooling system components (hoses, thermostat and radiator) last week at an Express Lube Plus and it was still cheaper than buying a ten year or newer used vehicle of any brand. No air bags, no cruise control, no power windows and no software to update in over 20 years. I'll have to buy a fleet vehicle similar to those U-Haul uses to get an electronically stripped down model similar to my simple Sentra.
And now my local weather man shows a new NASA satellite view to prove California's anti-pollution regulation standards are really working going by the global map from this article...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/15/nasa_creates_computer_model_of_dust_storms_forest_fires_and_sea_salt.html
Here's a 2017 video explaining NASA aerosol simulations... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1eRp0EGOmE
-
Pretty Ugly Weather Map for most of the US - No Global Cooling Here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/28/a-long-duration-heat-wave-is-beginning-in-washington-when-it-will-frequently-feel-like-100/?utm_term=.0521d1d77f66)
-
Pretty Ugly Weather Map for most of the US - No Global Cooling Here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/28/a-long-duration-heat-wave-is-beginning-in-washington-when-it-will-frequently-feel-like-100/?utm_term=.0521d1d77f66)
I think you (and the subeditor who composed the title) are confusing "weather" and "climate".
It's a common mistake.
Jeremy
-
Pretty Ugly Weather Map for most of the US - No Global Cooling Here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/28/a-long-duration-heat-wave-is-beginning-in-washington-when-it-will-frequently-feel-like-100/?utm_term=.0521d1d77f66)
Well, I can't read the map without paying to do it. Considering the source, I conclude it's not worth doing
You're still posting in The Coffee Corner, Alan, after swearing you were out of here for good. What made you change your mind?
-
Well, I can't read the map without paying to do it.
Link worked for me, I'm not a paying subscriber. Try again. Unless you're sure what you haven't seen is fake. :'(
-
It is a developing approach by news sites to limit the number of "free" views of articles per month. Russ, you probably already hit their limit. i got a warning about almost being out of views.
Shoot, if anyone wants some heat index, just head on down South. We have plenty to share - free. And we will throw in some rain on the days it is under a hundred five, just to make it feel better. Good for your skin though...
-
Russ, you probably already hit their limit.
Russ?
-
Russ?
Yes, as in Russ Lewis. Can't you read and figure out a signature?
-
World Bank Study on Climate Change Impact on South Asia: Not Good News (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28723)
-
Russ, you probably already hit their limit.
If I hit their limit, their limit must have been 0. I think they realize I don't believe their stuff and am likely to shoot it down, so they're not gonna let me see it.
-
It seems many are straying off topic here and engaging in 'tit for tat' personal comments, so I'll post the following link which is directly on topic.
Published on June 29, 2018, 'The Coldest Place On Earth Is Even Colder Than Scientists Thought.'
https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/
"Researchers discovered tiny valleys near the top of Antarctica’s ice sheet reach temperatures of nearly minus 100 degrees Celsius (minus 148 degrees Fahrenheit) in the winter.
The results could change scientists’ understanding of just how low temperatures can get at Earth’s surface, according to the researchers.
The coldest spot on Earth was found on the East Antarctic Plateau, a high snowy plateau in central Antarctica that encompasses the South Pole.
The record breaking temperatures occur occurred in small hollows 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) deep in the surface of the ice, on the southern side of high ridges on the plateau.
The record of minus 98 degrees Celsius is about as cold as it is possible to get at Earth’s surface, according to the researchers."
Hope this good news will help to alleviate the terrible stress that climate-change alarmists must be experiencing. ;)
-
World Bank Study on Climate Change Impact on South Asia: Not Good News (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28723)
I checked it out, Alan. It's the usual case of politics masquerading as science. Probably not time to go hide under the bed.
-
It seems many are straying off topic here and engaging in 'tit for tat' personal comments, so I'll post the following link which is directly on topic.
Published on June 29, 2018, 'The Coldest Place On Earth Is Even Colder Than Scientists Thought.'
https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/ (https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/)
Hope this good news will help to alleviate the terrible stress that climate-change alarmists must be experiencing. ;)
Ah no. Finding a new colder place on Earth only provides new data and new thinking, it doesn't by itself, dismiss what the majority of scientists have discovered prior to this in terms of other areas INCREASING in warmth. The text seems clear: The results could change scientists’ understanding of just how low temperatures can get at Earth’s surface, according to the researchers.
-
But if we'd found a spot hotter than we expected it to be, that'd be proof of global warming. . . er, "climate change" since no "global" warming has been detected except in tendentious politically-motivated graphs.
-
But if we'd found a spot hotter than we expected it to be, that'd be proof of global warming. . . er, "climate change" since no "global" warming has been detected.
Again, no!. You don't seem to understand the scientific process very well sir*. Or what climate change is*. Climate change: the very two words indicates examining something more than one time and recording a difference over time. That's what the word "change" after the word climate is supposed to indicate to you. Like one hand clapping, one measurement of anything (color, temp, etc) doesn't tell you a lick about change. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
*Hence, this isn't to be taken too seriously:
I checked it out, Alan. It's the usual case of politics masquerading as science.
-
Canadian weather forecasters just found that hot spot. Tomorrow, temperatures in Toronto will reach 35C (95F). That's warmer than Miami or New Orleans.
-
If I hit their limit, their limit must have been 0. I think they realize I don't believe their stuff and am likely to shoot it down, so they're not gonna let me see it.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
-
You don't seem to understand the scientific process very well sir*. Or what climate change is*.
Actually, I understand the scientific process quite well, Andrew. And I understand exactly what "climate change" is. It's what the left substituted for the term "global warming," as a scare term when it turned out there wasn't any.
-
Actually, I understand the scientific process quite well, Andrew. And I understand exactly what "climate change" is.
Your writings corrected here show otherwise. But like your inability to even attempt to read anything outside your bubble of confirmation bias, it is understandable that you'd ignore the corrections to your misunderstanding of how one measurement tells us nothing about change.
What is you do/did for a living?
-
Again, no!. You don't seem to understand the scientific process very well sir*. Or what climate change is*. Climate change: the very two words indicates examining something more than one time and recording a difference over time. That's what the word "change" after the word climate is supposed to indicate to you. Like one hand clapping, one measurement of anything (color, temp, etc) doesn't tell you a lick about change. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
Andrew, you're being deliberately obtuse. Re-read Russ's post and see if the sarcasm is detectable.
Jeremy
-
Andrew, you're being deliberately obtuse. Re-read Russ's post and see if the sarcasm is detectable.
Jeremy
This? "But if we'd found a spot hotter than we expected it to be, that'd be proof of global warming. . . er, "climate change" since no "global" warming has been detected.
It isn't, sorry. That is of course just my personal opinion.
-
Duh!
-
the left
Them again!! Check your tinfoil hats everyone!!!
-
Russ, you need to read Andrew properly. What he is saying is that detecting the coldest spot on Earth, colder than anything and anywhere else measured before, is just another proof of Global Warming. You see, his hypotheses is that if we measured at the very same spot hundred or million years ago, we would have found that it was even colder ;)
-
Canadian weather forecasters just found that hot spot. Tomorrow, temperatures in Toronto will reach 35C (95F). That's warmer than Miami or New Orleans.
Fake news, my friend :)
-
Russ, you need to read Andrew properly. What he is saying is that detecting the coldest spot on Earth, colder than anything and anywhere else measured before, is just another proof of Global Warming.
You need to read Andrew properly, not metaphorically as you so often do. He never stated that whatsoever. What he stated is that the new data is just that and doesn't provide proof of Climate Change (Global Warming is a bogus term IMHO). It proves what it proves: a new low in measurement data produced.
You see, his hypotheses is that if we measured at the very same spot hundred or million years ago, we would have found that it was even colder
It isn't my hypotheses whatsoever and I never said it was. Your hypotheses above is entirely possible but no one could measure the same spot millions of years ago, so it is a rather silly and not thought out hypotheses. Seems several folks here do not understand the scientific process or how change is measured and reported.
-
... no one could measure the same spot millions of years ago, so it is a rather silly...
Bingo!
-
Bingo!
So you see how ridiculous your own hypotheses /comments are observed, that's progress. What you can't see is I didn't make any such comments, you did:
"You see, his my (Slobodan Blagojevic)hypotheses is that if we measured at the very same spot hundred or million years ago, we would have found that it was even colder"
-
For those interested there is a new policy (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125585.msg1048664#new) on posting links in replies to posts here on the Coffee Corner. I've tried to respond to factually incorrect posts over the last several days but have just been notified that a couple of my posts have been deleted. I don't know how to deal with the problem of paywalls as almost every newspaper, including Russ's beloved Wall Street Journal, have them these days. The only major paper I am aware of that has NO paywall is The Guardian and they rely on voluntary contributions to keep the site open to all.
One of the deleted posts concerned "the coldest place on earth" that Ray posted. The LINK (https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/) which is free and should meet our moderator's criteria has some very carefully written caveats:
When the researchers first announced they had found the coldest temperatures on Earth five years ago, they determined that persistent clear skies and light winds are required for temperatures to dip this low.
The new study found not only are clear skies necessary, but the air must also be extremely dry, because water vapor traps some heat in the air.
The high elevation of the East Antarctic Plateau and its proximity to the South Pole give it the coldest climate of any region on Earth.
There is no extrapolation from this paper to Global Cooling or Global Heating, it is merely a scientific curiosity.
I will, of necessity, have to go back to posting on various threads when I see that there are incorrect posts that need correcting. I will continue my position of not responding to personal comments directed towards me.
-
I will continue my position of not responding to personal comments directed towards me.
Which personal comments are those, Alan?
-
To add some factual information to the thread, I've attached a chart of the Mean (hourly) temperatures for the month of June for the center of the Netherlands (as measured at station 260, De Bilt), from 1951 to 2018. Note, the data does not yet include the last 2 days of this month, which are expected to raise the mean for June 2018 a little more with above average temperatures for the time of year and for the month to date.
The red line is the 11-year average, which allows to eliminate the effect of the solar cycles and thus produces a more steady line than the annual data. That makes it clear that since the last 30 years there is a marked increase in the average temperatures, and the trend is upwards in my country (as it is in neighboring countries).
So over the last 68 years, the June mean temperature has risen by more than 1.1 degrees Celsius. The month also sets a record for low amounts of precipitation, which endangers food crop production, and has almost reached the point of having to ration the use of water. We can only hope that the next 2-3 months (the hottest of the year) will compensate for the lack of precipitation by a surplus of it, to restore a balance. Because of the increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere some flooding is possible if it all comes down at the same time. Stay tuned ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... So over the last 68 years...
Wow! That long?
-
Wow! That long?
I would have given you data since 1880 if only it was as reliable and available as the data I used for this specific location location (measurements started in 1901). But if you prefer, you can use the hemispherical means in this chart:
(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png)
The trend is similar despite it showing annual averages.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you want to go back further than 1880, this might be an interesting read...
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you want to go back further than 1880, this might be an interesting read...
https://www.sciencealert.com/why-4-5-million-years-of-fluctuating-global-temperatures-can-t-explain-climate-change-today
Cheers,
Bart
The chart is deceiving. It starts at the middle of the last ice age when it was the coldest. It doesn't show what the highest temperatures were previous to that when the previous ice age ended. It may be no warmer now than at that time. That's the period you want to compare too. Do you have a chart?
Another assumption is that CO2 is what's causing it and people. Maybe the studies have missed another factor unknown at this point. The fact the population and CO2 is going up at the same time that temperature is rising may be coincidental, not causative.
Finally, even if temperatures are going up, for whatever reason, we may find that a few extra degrees are actually beneficial for mankind and most species. The reason we've done so well has been attributed to a warming climate. It's allowed us to plant and grow more food leading to higher populations. So any extra couple of degrees would be more beneficial.
I'd like to comment on populations. It's interesting that those who support the negativity of higher temperature due to climate change are also protectors of the environment where species have declined. They base their assessment on the number of a particular species as the guideline of whether it is endangered. Yet, when it comes to man, they ignore populations. If human population is increasing, than we should say our species is benefiting as well, regardless of what the climate is doing. You can't have it both ways. Sure, specific areas and people may be hurt by rising sea levels for example. But if generally, the overall population is increasing, then you to credit warming as having a beneficial effect for our general good.
-
The chart is deceiving. It starts at the middle of the last ice age when it was the coldest. It doesn't show what the highest temperatures were previous to that when the previous ice age ended. It may be no warmer now than at that time. That's the period you want to compare too. Do you have a chart?
Another assumption is that CO2 is what's causing it and people. Maybe the studies have missed another factor unknown at this point. The fact the population and CO2 is going up at the same time that temperature is rising may be coincidental, not causative.
Don't be silly.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Attached 800000 years of temperature anomalies.
-
hmmm.
Looks like we are headed for the "great cooling" based on that plot.
-
Don't be silly.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Attached 800000 years of temperature anomalies.
The chart you posted answers my question I asked in my last post. What was the highest temperature prior to the last ice age. Your chart proved my point. That 120,000 years ago, before the peak of the last ice age around 100,000, the temperature was higher than any other time. I don't believe we were burning fossils fuels 120,000 years ago. Who's silly now?
-
It seems many are straying off topic here and engaging in 'tit for tat' personal comments, so I'll post the following link which is directly on topic.
Published on June 29, 2018, 'The Coldest Place On Earth Is Even Colder Than Scientists Thought.'
https://principia-scientific.org/the-coldest-place-on-earth-is-even-colder-than-scientists-thought/
Hope this good news will help to alleviate the terrible stress that climate-change alarmists must be experiencing. ;)
At least it explains how we still get below zero temps in the Northern US from those cold fronts when we're complaining how hot it is in Texas in December and then the next day we get snow all of sudden. WTF?!
Still no one can predict what the jet stream will do to high and low pressure that my weather man says each day is the only mechanism that triggers rain from the warm humid Gulf air hitting upper level cold air. I wish they could trace that back and connect the dots with hard evidence that CO2 levels controls/affects all this.
-
In 2016, there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals challenging “consensus” climate science.
In 2017 there were 400 scientific papers published which favour skepticism on Climate Alarm.
So far in 2018 there have been 254 new papers that support Climate Change Skepticism.
https://principia-scientific.org/2018-254-new-papers-support-climate-change-skepticism/
When you've read them all, get back to me. ;D
-
In 2016, there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals challenging “consensus” climate science.
So what? That's how science works, scientists challenging scientists in a process of peer review.
For an explanation how that works (and apparently still necessary to explain) see my earlier post here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124501.msg1050093#msg1050093), and in particular the link to :
https://youtu.be/udeF6EFUzkk?t=252
until about 5:20, unless you want to watch the entire video (which is recommended).
In 2017 there were 400 scientific papers published which favour skepticism on Climate Alarm.
That doesn't sound like a scientific observation, but more of an opinion. Which is not a surprise coming from a source that's labeled (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/) as a biased source (conspiracy-pseudoscience), and I'm not talking about you, but about the website you like to link to (see attachment).
A fine example of the (lack of) credibility of your source is where they need strawman's arguments to build something of a case:
These 254 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?). In fact, science will never be settled but it will evolve with new insights based on better data.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Barents Sea seems to have crossed a climate tipping point
This is probably what a climate tipping point looks like—and we're past it."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/barents-sea-seems-to-have-crossed-a-climate-tipping-point/
QUOTE "Many of the threats we know are associated with climate change are slow moving. Gradually rising seas, a steady uptick in extreme weather events, and more all mean that change will come gradually to much of the globe. But we also recognize that there can be tipping points, where certain aspects of our climate system shift suddenly to new behaviors.
The challenge with tipping points is that they're often easiest to identify in retrospect. We have some indications that our climate has experienced them in the past, but reconstructing how quickly a system tipped over or the forces that drove the change can be difficult. Now, a team of Norwegian scientists is suggesting it has watched the climate reach a tipping point: the loss of Arctic sea ice has flipped the Barents Sea from acting as a buffer between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans to something closer to an arm of the Atlantic."
If indeed irreversible, then it will lead to changes in the weather patterns, and ultimately the (local?) climate.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So what? That's how science works, scientists challenging scientists in a process of peer review.
Looks like it was necessary for me to have mentioned that this number of papers would suggest that the often claimed 97% consensus, that AGW is a serious threat, is bogus. I didn't mention it because I thought that would have been obvious.
DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?).
A previous president of the United States, Barack Obama, is noted for his statement that 'the science is settled', in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Didn't you know that, Bart?
Also the frequent claims of a 95% confidence, from the IPCC and other authorities, that the main cause of the current warming is anthropogenic would also suggest that the science is settled, or at least very close to being settled.
That doesn't sound like a scientific observation, but more of an opinion. Which is not a surprise coming from a source that's labeled as a biased source (conspiracy-pseudoscience), and I'm not talking about you, but about the website you like to link to (see attachment).
Of course, all websites that express an opinion you disagree with, can be described as conspiracy-pseudoscience. I try to look at both sides of the argument and form my own judgement as to which argument is more reasonable.
Considering the very complex and chaotic nature of weather patterns and climate changes, I would say that any organization that expresses a 95% confidence that minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming is bad, is engaging in pseudoscience.
-
Looks like it was necessary for me to have mentioned that this number of papers would suggest that the often claimed 97% consensus, that AGW is a serious threat, is bogus. I didn't mention it because I thought that would have been obvious.
I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).
Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done (https://youtu.be/udeF6EFUzkk?t=378). The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.
The discussion should be what to do about it! Unless one prefers to troll instead.
A previous president of the United States, Barack Obama, is noted for his statement that 'the science is settled', in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Didn't you know that, Bart?
Who cares? But then, you're just trolling, I suppose?
Also the frequent claims of a 95% confidence, from the IPCC and other authorities, that the main cause of the current warming is anthropogenic would also suggest that the science is settled, or at least very close to being settled.
Are you questioning the main cause of current global warming? It's basic chemistry ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s
Sorry if that doesn't jive with your preference for conspiracy theories, it's a pretty basic example of KISS.
Or are you still not understanding the distinction between confidence levels (= data quality) and likelihood (= probability). I'll explain it once more below.
Of course, all websites that express an opinion you disagree with, can be described as conspiracy-pseudoscience. I try to look at both sides of the argument and form my own judgement as to which argument is more reasonable.
So your judgment is that Science is wrong, and you are right? I rest my case...
Considering the very complex and chaotic nature of weather patterns and climate changes, I would say that any organization that expresses a 95% confidence that minuscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming is bad, is engaging in pseudoscience.
Same old lack of understanding. I'll explain it one more time, confidence levels are about the quality of the data that leads to the consensus about that data. The data is not wrong, how could it when basically everybody observes the same thing under comparable circumstances? It has little to do with probability of future events.
It's useless to seriously discuss probabilities with people who can't even accept consensus about observations, if it weren't for the other people reading along.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).
Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done (https://youtu.be/udeF6EFUzkk?t=378). The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.
Also of importance is several large petrochemical companies are spending a lot of money developing renewable fuels
The discussion should be what to do about it! Unless one prefers to troll instead.
An impossibility on this forum because many of the commenters have little understanding of the science or the scientific method.
Same old lack of understanding. I'll explain it one more time, confidence levels are about the quality of the data that leads to the consensus about that data. The data is not wrong, how could it when basically everybody observes the same thing under comparable circumstances? It has little to do with probability of future events.
Counting "scientific" papers with no understanding of the underlying quality is a fools errand
It's useless to seriously discuss probabilities with people who can't even accept consensus about observations, if it weren't for the other people reading along.
+1
-
Companies like Shell and Exxon already knew it (and published about it) in the '90s. It's settled, done (https://youtu.be/udeF6EFUzkk?t=378). The results are in, the earth is not flat, and humans are the main cause of global warming (by burning of fossil fuel and from land-use). Not the sun as it was before earlier glaciations, humans are causing it.
The discussion should be what to do about it!
Well, it's obvious there's only one thing to do about it: Run! Run for your life! Then hide. Hide under the bed.
-
Well, it's obvious there's only one thing to do about it: Run! Run for your life! Then hide. Hide under the bed.
- minus 1: FUD, fact/science denial. :'(
-
Let's assume it's warming up and it's caused by man. Let's assume the worse as to effect -only bad, nothing good. What are you going to do about it? China, India and America are meeting no promised Paris reduction goals. They create over 50% of the CO2 in the entire world. Even Europe for the most part is not meeting its promises in Paris. Worse still, China still has 3/4 of their population in poverty and they want to enter the middle class with all the additional carbon burning that will have to go on like the other 1/4 of their population. So they have a billion people, equal to three times the US, who want to be like us. That doesn't include India. All these people schmutzing up the atmosphere.
Switching to renewables wil help, but only in a small way. The population is the main culprit. So what can be done, realistically?
-
epidemic disease is usually one of the more common effective means.
War is usually too limited to be effective on that scale and keep the planet habitable.
extended, large volcanic eruption with consequent food supply loss
large asteroid hit.
so basically, something over which we have little or no influence.
-
Let's assume it's warming up and it's caused by man. Let's assume the worse as to effect -only bad, nothing good. What are you going to do about it?
You don't bury your head in the sand (or your own bubble), you reduce your own carbon footprint, you do embrace renewables, you do not go the path of Trump and build up coal or lie that there's such a thing as 'clean coal', you don't reduce restrictions of carbon among other nasties, or reduce requirements for gas mileage, you support financially those industries that are clean(er), tax those that are not etc. But the most important thing you do about it is get involved, educated and ignore FUD and science deniers who's agenda is solely to make money (meaning, when you hear reducing coal means job losses in a rather tiny sector, or hear the cost of gas may go up X cents, you don't cry foul that it's costing some a bit of money, today).
There's far more you can do but this is a start. Can YOU do or support ANY of the above? Some of us can and do. Personally, I send MORE electricity to the grid than I use thanks in large part to:
-
... DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?). In fact, science will never be settled but it will evolve with new insights based on better data...
Oh, dear Lord!
We spent several last years listening to you et al peddling the “97% consensus” and “science is settled” only to hear today that “nobody claimed that anyway”!!!
You sound like a kid cought with his hand in the cookie jar, claiming in panic “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, I swear!”
-
Today is Asteroid Day 2018. Never mind global warming. Let's back burner that. We've got more to worry about.
https://www.space.com/40239-near-earth-asteroid-detection-space-telescope.html
-
Also of importance is several large petrochemical companies are spending a lot of money developing renewable fuels...
And that proves what? That they’re shrewd business people, as their current business model is based on a finite source, which will end one day and they better be prepared or risk bankruptcy in the future.
-
And that proves what? That they’re shrewd business people, as their current business model is based on a finite source, which will end one day and they better be prepared or risk bankruptcy in the future.
Yes, it proves forward thinking, something lacking by some posting here....
-
Yes, it proves forward thinking, something lacking by some posting here....
Nothing wrong with renewable fuels. Let's just let the free market handle it rather than government picking winners and losers in industry. Regarding companies like Exxon developing alternative fuels, it also makes sense for them even if carbon fuels do not run out. After all Exxon and similar companies already have distribution and sales markets set up and running. Switching over to a different fuel or adding an extra pump along side their diesel and gasoline pumps, is a natural for them.
-
Nothing wrong with renewable fuels. Let's just let the free market handle it rather than government picking winners and losers in industry.
Unlike say coal, wheat (framing), dairy etc:
Contrary to what proponents (AR: like you Alan?) of free markets advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec)... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La)... , business in America cannot succeed without government subsidy. Expanding on Joseph Pan's answer to What industries in the United States are subsidized by the government? ,
the majority of American industry is subsidized. A short version of this long list would be:
1. Agriculture,
2. Telecom (both fixed and wireless),
3. Banking,
4. Auto,
5. Trucking,
6. Rail,
7. Investment banking,
8. Medicine,
9. Television,
10. Mining,
11. Steel,
12. Airlines,
13. Real estate,
14. High tech (computing, internet, software),
15. Light and heavy industries,
16. Manufacturing,
17. Textile,
18. Oil,
19. Defense; As pointed out here http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1 (http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1) , the US provides military aid to other nations as long as the recipients purchase their weapons and equipment from American manufacturers. The American government pretends to be generous doling out tax payers' money to others while well connected companies like Halliburton profit from the generosity. (And of course, the Defense Department spends Billions on research that is conducted by private entities like Universities, resulting in the internet, amongst many others).
-
Oh, dear Lord!
We spent several last years listening to you et al peddling the “97% consensus” and “science is settled” only to hear today that “nobody claimed that anyway”!!!
Disappointing reaction, I must assume that my expectations were too high, mea culpa. Apparently, 'you' have not been listening or, worse, not understanding simple concepts.
Good luck with catching up.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Unlike say coal, wheat (framing), dairy etc:
Contrary to what proponents (AR: like you Alan?) of free markets advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec)... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La)... , business in America cannot succeed without government subsidy. Expanding on Joseph Pan's answer to What industries in the United States are subsidized by the government? ,
the majority of American industry is subsidized. A short version of this long list would be:
1. Agriculture,
2. Telecom (both fixed and wireless),
3. Banking,
4. Auto,
5. Trucking,
6. Rail,
7. Investment banking,
8. Medicine,
9. Television,
10. Mining,
11. Steel,
12. Airlines,
13. Real estate,
14. High tech (computing, internet, software),
15. Light and heavy industries,
16. Manufacturing,
17. Textile,
18. Oil,
19. Defense; As pointed out here http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1 (http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1) , the US provides military aid to other nations as long as the recipients purchase their weapons and equipment from American manufacturers. The American government pretends to be generous doling out tax payers' money to others while well connected companies like Halliburton profit from the generosity. (And of course, the Defense Department spends Billions on research that is conducted by private entities like Universities, resulting in the internet, amongst many others).
Except for defense industries where there may be national security concerns, we should drop all subsidies and supports like the once oil depletion tax allowance. When it was dropped it had no baleful effect on the oil companies. They got even richer. Likewise, we should do the same with solar, food, etc. Let free markets decide. We would do better as a country. When government interferes with natural effects of free markets, they distort those markets. Capital is allocated often foolishly, and wasted. Free markets pushed by supply and demand creates the most efficient way to invest scarce capital resources. That will produce the most bang for the buck.
Requiring countries we give military aid to spend that money on our defense industries has nothing to do with free markets, but rather to help them defend themselves and to have them as a friend in the world. We may have bases in their lands as forward post to defend our interests. In any case would you prefer countries that we defend buying weapons from other countries with our money rather than us? On the other hand, if we are only giving money to certain countries as a way to help our national defense companies without any other reason to support that country, then we should stop funding those countries and our defense industries. .
-
Except for defense industries where there may be national security concerns, we should drop all subsidies and supports like the once oil depletion tax allowance.
Tell that to Trump, who's stating tariffs of cars** etc, are due to national security concerns (rubbish). Seems you and I (and others) find his ideas to be idiotic!
** The Trump administration has made three reckless moves on trade in recent days. On May 23, it launched an investigation into whether imports of cars and S.U.V.s threaten the national security of the United States.
“Economic security is military security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said. But this administration’s push to blur, or even erase, the line between our economic and national security interests is dangerous — both for the United States and for the world.
-
Requiring countries we give military aid to spend that money on our defense industries has nothing to do with free markets, but rather to help them defend themselves and to have them as a friend in the world. We may have bases in their lands as forward post to defend our interests.
So you're happy with little finger(s) about this:
Republican Donald Trump criticized U.S. military support for several countries — Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and South Korea — during a discussion on nuclear proliferation at a CNN town hall in late March, saying “we can’t afford it.” We’ll answer the question: What exactly does the U.S. provide in terms of military support to these countries?
Or those are not our friends?
-
Tell that to Trump, who's stating tariffs of cars** etc, are due to national security concerns (rubbish). Seems you and I (and others) find his ideas to be idiotic!
** The Trump administration has made three reckless moves on trade in recent days. On May 23, it launched an investigation into whether imports of cars and S.U.V.s threaten the national security of the United States.
“Economic security is military security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said. But this administration’s push to blur, or even erase, the line between our economic and national security interests is dangerous — both for the United States and for the world.
He's mentioning National Security because Congress allows the president to impose tariffs if there is a National Security concern. We know his main reason is to put pressure on other countries to lower their tariffs to meet ours and to stop China from stealing our intellectual property and trade secrets. It does effect our national security because China is getting very militarily and economically stronger and could pose a danger to us. This is not just conjecture. Have you seen what China did in the South Pacific with the military buildup of those empty islands? Stealing our trade secrets allows them to produce matching military assets, cheaply. They also impose an economic challenge to us.
But Trump isn't imposing tariffs for the long term. He's just using them to get concessions in negotiations with these countries for trade and to protect our secrets. That's good for us. Hopefully it will work. It might not but he seems to have more testicular fortitude then most previous presidents. He likes a fight and is willing to go to the mat.
-
So you're happy with little finger(s) about this:
Republican Donald Trump criticized U.S. military support for several countries — Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and South Korea — during a discussion on nuclear proliferation at a CNN town hall in late March, saying “we can’t afford it.” We’ll answer the question: What exactly does the U.S. provide in terms of military support to these countries?
Or those are not our friends?
He wants them to pay more. These are rich nations. They are no longer the destitute countries after WWII trying to keep the Soviet Union at bay. Germany and other NATO countries are not meeting their promises to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. They let America do the protecting and spending. Who needs friends like that? Meanwhile, we have a $21 trillion debt and you and I can't get better health care while they are getting great health care because they use their money on their social needs instead of tanks. Why are we so stupid? If they aren't going to spend on defense like they promised, we should reduce our military presence and keep the money saved at home for ourselves. As an aside, do we really need to protect some of these countries at all? Let them pay for a few more divisions of troops using their own countrymen.
-
He wants them to pay more. These are rich nations. They are no longer the destitute countries after WWII trying to keep the Soviet Union at bay. Germany and other NATO countries are not meeting their promises to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. They let America do the protecting and spending. Who needs friends like that? Meanwhile, we have a $21 trillion debt and you and I can't get better health care while they are getting great health care because they use their money on their social needs instead of tanks. Why are we so stupid? If they aren't going to spend on defense like they promised, we should reduce our military presence and keep the money saved at home for ourselves. As an aside, do we really need to protect some of these countries at all? Let them pay for a few more divisions of troops using their own countrymen.
Statements that are made here that contradict themselves to support Trump appear hypocritical to me, perhaps others!
-
It does effect our national security because China is getting very militarily and economically stronger and could pose a danger to us.
Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp). That will be a big shock to the US. China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.
-
Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp). That will be a big shock to the US. China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.
So you agree that China is a threat to us.
-
Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp). That will be a big shock to the US.
Exactly how are they going to “dump” it and why would that be “a big shock”?
-
Statements that are made here that contradict themselves to support Trump appear hypocritical to me, perhaps others!
Nothing contradictory. Trump didn't get rich by keeping his wallet open. He didn't give away squat when it came to his own companies. Now that he's president, he's trying to make things better for Americans by improving trade and making us more militarily secure. Some of his plans may not work out, hopefully most will. That's a good thing. At least he's trying. Past presidents just gave away the farm. So would have Hillary. We need someone who's tough.
-
Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080615/china-owns-us-debt-how-much.asp). That will be a big shock to the US. China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.
The article you linked to says the opposite. It says there won't be a big shock. First off buyiung our dollars stabilizes their Yuan. It helps provide a market for their exports. Also, and I don't recall if this is in the article, we send them more dollars to buy their stuff then they send to us to buy ours. So they have a surplus of dollars. That's the trade deficit. In any case, you can't eat paper. The dollar is paper. So what are they going to do with all those dollars they have? They could stick it under their mattresses. But they'll make more money from interest if they invest in safe US Treasuries. They're not stupid, that's for sure.
You ought to re-read the article.
-
Nothing contradictory. Trump didn't get rich by keeping his wallet open. He didn't give away squat when it came to his own companies. Now that he's president, he's trying to make things better for Americans by improving trade and making us more militarily secure. Some of his plans may not work out, hopefully most will. That's a good thing. At least he's trying. Past presidents just gave away the farm. So would have Hillary. We need someone who's tough.
Trump’s rich daddy didn’t loan him a million dollars? He’s how rich? No tax returns provided in how long? Sorry, difficulty in taking you too seriously again.
-
The article you linked to says the opposite. It says there won't be a big shock. First off buyiung our dollars stabilizes their Yuan. It helps provide a market for their exports. Also, and I don't recall if this is in the article, we send them more dollars to buy their stuff then they send to us to buy ours. So they have a surplus of dollars. That's the trade deficit. In any case, you can't eat paper. The dollar is paper. So what are they going to do with all those dollars they have? They could stick it under their mattresses. But they'll make more money from interest if they invest in safe US Treasuries. They're not stupid, that's for sure.
You ought to re-read the article.
I don't need to, I was just posting that one to give you an indication of how much debt is owned by the Chinese. There are plenty of economists out there that have grave concerns about this concentration of debt. China can manipulate the dollar so that it might fall and other countries could follow suit and sell their holdings. If China reduces its buying at a time when the U.S. is increasing its supply of new Treasuries into the market, that could lead to a rout in the bond market. Remember the current US tax "reform" is forcing the issuance of more debt.
-
We need someone tough? A guy who wimped out of service (which foot?) while continuing to slam true war hero’s (McCain and Mueller). He is pathetically not tough!
-
Trump’s rich daddy didn’t loan him a million dollars? He’s how rich? No tax returns provided in how long? Sorry, difficulty in taking you too seriously again.
He's richer than me.
-
I don't need to, I was just posting that one to give you an indication of how much debt is owned by the Chinese. There are plenty of economists out there that have grave concerns about this concentration of debt. China can manipulate the dollar so that it might fall and other countries could follow suit and sell their holdings. If China reduces its buying at a time when the U.S. is increasing its supply of new Treasuries into the market, that could lead to a rout in the bond market. Remember the current US tax "reform" is forcing the issuance of more debt.
I agree with you there. If China and other countries don't buy, we'll either have to raise interest rates on them to get them to buy. Or our Fed will print more money and give it to our banks to buy treasuries and support our deficits and debt. That's why the Fed and Congress are so dangerous. And us to. The people. We want more from our government than we're willing to be taxed. So the Fed prints more.
Of course, the Chinese will suffer too. Printing lowers the value of our dollar. So there people will work for less to provide us with all the great stuff we get from them, now even cheaper. We suffer too. Because inflation devalues the purchasing power of our dollar to buy things here and abroad. It's a terrible cycle. Our debt is going to create a crisis one day. It will be make the last recession look like a walk in the park.
-
... sell their holdings...
Every selling transaction has a buying side.
-
Climate or weather - none of them is cooling in Toronto. Here is some compelling evidence:
Today, we had here 35C (43 with Humidex), that was warmer than in Egypt. And that's no fake news.
-
Every selling transaction has a buying side.
Correct. And since the Chinese are no fools, they are unlikely to slaughter the goose that's laying their golden eggs. So what will happen is that when the loans expire, the USA will have to refinance their debts. That will devaluate the US$ (because more money will need to be 'printed' without adding real value), which is exactly what Trump wants, since a devalued US$ means a devalued debt.
In fact, I've already pointed that out soon after the 2016 elections.
The only thing is that the average Joe, Alan, or Slobodan, will pay for that with increased prices for all imported goods, like iPhones and batteries, and affordable Solar panels, and foods that don't grow in the USA, etc., etc., etc. So basically, you're (rhetorical you) screwing yourselves, bigtime. And the whole world is watching in amazement, how stupid can one be ...
And thinking that ripping up trade agreements will spur local US production by foreign companies, is too naive to be taken seriously. Who'd want to invest in an economy/market that will have no spending power, other than those top 1% in the fossil fuel, and other dinosaurs?
Does the current USA administration really think that the rest of the world doesn't see what's going on?
Nevermind, it's the citizens (AKA the sheeple) who are going to pay for it, not the swamp people in Washington.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The only thing is that the average Joe, Alan, or Slobodan, will pay for that with increased prices for all imported goods, like iPhones and batteries, and affordable Solar panels, and foods that don't grow in the USA, etc., etc., etc. So basically, you're (rhetorical you) screwing yourselves, bigtime. And the whole world is watching in amazement, how stupid can one be ...
Right now almost all furniture, textiles, cookware, small appliances, car parts, and a bunch of other stuff comes from overseas. It would be very difficult to recapture these industries here in the US. Most of the US steel is manufactured in mini-mills and not the big integrated steel plants of yesteryear, though US Steel does manufacture here. So what happens when the prices of all these things start to go up? Who knows, a lot of the Trump supporters in the rust belt states still think those jobs are coming back.
Does the current USA administration really think that the rest of the world doesn't see what's going on?
Nevermind, it's the citizens (AKA the sheeple) who are going to pay for it, not the swamp people in Washington.
It was falling down laughing funny yesterday when the President's economic advisor went on Fox Business news and said, "...to boldly claim that a growing federal budget deficit was declining — and then threw in a “rapidly” for good measure..." As the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/29/larry-kudlow-and-the-white-house-now-claim-the-growing-deficit-is-actually-dropping-and-rapidly/?utm_term=.05dc1e53574f) said, "There is no publicly available justification for this claim." The Chairman of Economic Advisors, Kevin Hassett, once wrote a book (1999) explaining how the Dow was underpriced and would get to 36,000. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
-
I think, Bart, that the world will redirect its investments from the futureless U.S. to the Dutch. More precisely, into swimming gear for the Dutch. You know, rising sea levels and such ... ;)
-
Ahmmm... about those computer models predicting future global warming:
-
I think, Bart, that the world will redirect its investments from the futureless U.S. to the Dutch. More precisely, into swimming gear for the Dutch. You know, rising sea levels and such ... ;)
Probably not swimming gear, but possibly (amongst many others) Water Management. In fact, our King Willem Alexander had to give up his chairmanship of the United Nations Secretary General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB) in 1993 already, when he became our monarch.
So even (because of his politically independent status) the King of our tiny (in size) country has had a first hand education/experience in things that will matter in the future of (also other) nations. BTW, your current 'leader' knows about ..., remind me, besides making money for himself and his cronies?
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Today, we had here 35C (43 with Humidex), that was warmer than in Egypt.
Ok, if it is a GLOBAL warming, why isn’t Miami sweltering in 104+ F (40+ C) heat then? As for Kairo, 100+ is nothing unusual, but Toronto is nowhere near that, let alone warmer.
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN? That would explain the fake news, as I can’t see anything remotely close to 35C.
-
Ahmmm... about those computer models predicting future global warming:
If one believes this kind of "computer models", then one's even more naive than I thought. Which explains a lot ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
If one believes this kind of "computer models", then one's even more naive than I thought...
That’s what we’ve been saying all along, Bart, glad we finally agree ;)
-
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN? That would explain the fake news, as I can’t see anything remotely close to 35C.
Just out of curiosity, which reputable sources do you rely on?
My information about local affairs comes from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI (https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/about))
For foreign affairs, I'd have to rely on foreign sources, without detailed knowledge about their specific measurement circumstances. Apparently, you do have such detailed knowledge, or do you?
Cheers,
Bart
-
That’s what we’ve been saying all along, Bart, glad we finally agree ;)
No need to be so harsh on your own judgment capability, really, it was clear enough without having to stress it.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Just to stipulate (given an apparent lack of judgement capability by some 'participants'), we do NOT agree. It may seem superfluous to manage expectations, but apparently it's necesssary.
-
I'm kind of amazed that, after it has been explained to the deniers multiple times, they prefer to deny the obvious. The consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made, and it's mainly caused by burning of fossil fuel (and land-use).
Whereas I am definitely amazed that those who are confident that man's CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming will be disastrous or catastrophic, do not appear to understand the basic principles of the scientific methodology, even though many of these people claim to be scientists.
Now I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I know better than most scientists working in the field of climatology. I have a reasonable explanation for their 'apparent' lack of understanding of these basic principles of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions; and that explanation is that the views of many of these scientists are being misrepresented by the political processes which, by their very nature, need expressions of confidence in whatever position the politicians are promoting, in order for action to be taken.
Now you could argue that despite the scientific uncertainty of the causes of the current slight warming period, it's better to exaggerate the certainty and create alarm, in order to motivate action. That argument possibly has some merit.
I'm very much aware that there are benefits to the development of alternative, additional, and renewable sources of energy. Energy sources are a basic requirement for all human activity in a modern society. The more energy sources, the better, and the more prosperous we become. I have no objection to research on more efficient methods of generating solar power, and more efficient methods of battery storage.
What I object to is lying to the public, and pretending that current extreme weather events are unprecedented.
By the way, your comment that 'the consensus is about the observations that global warming is man-made' suggests you are either confused about the scientific methodology or are just being political.
Whilst observations, of some sort, are always a necessary part of the scientific process, it is the interpretation of those observations that frequently varies. All scientific data has to be interpreted before it makes sense and can either support, cast doubt, or falsify an existing hypothesis or theory.
Interpretations of observations have frequently been proved wrong as science progresses. For millions of years it was observed, and continues to be observed, that the sun rises in the East, gradually moves across the sky, and sets in the West. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that observation, in the absence of modern science, was that the sun is revolving around the Earth.
Even though we now understand it is the Earth that is revolving in relation to the Sun, the observation that the sun is revolving around the Earth can still be made. It is the interpretation of that observation which has changed, as science has progressed.
-
Whereas I am definitely amazed that those who are confident that man's CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming, and that such warming will be disastrous or catastrophic, do not appear to understand the basic principles of the scientific methodology, even though many of these people claim to be scientists.
?????
How many strawman's arguments do some 'participants' need to make a silly/nonsensical point.
Cheers,
bart
-
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN? That would explain the fake news, as I can’t see anything remotely close to 35C.
Where did you get YOUR fake news? Look man:
-
Ok, if it is a GLOBAL warming, why isn’t Miami sweltering in 104+ F (40+ C) heat then? As for Kairo, 100+ is nothing unusual, but Toronto is nowhere near that, let alone warmer.
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN? That would explain the fake news, as I can’t see anything remotely close to 35C.
Slobodan, the weather is one thing you shouldn't argue about with Canadians. BTW, I get usually my weather forecast from www.theweathernetwork.com .
If you don't believe my unbiased reporting, here is a page with Toronto temperatures for the last 2 weeks.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/toronto/historic
Look at Saturday, June 30, 4 and 5pm - 35C (95F), feels like 45C (113F). Even now at 9:30pm, the outside temperature it's still over 30C (88F) - feels like 37C. Great for my tomato plants, but too hot for me.
Toronto Weather History for the Previous 24 Hours - Sat, Jun 30
6:00 pm 33 °C Partly sunny. 28 km/h ↑ 59% 101.32 kPa 24 km
5:00 pm 35 °C Broken clouds. 26 km/h ↑ 53% 101.36 kPa 24 km
-
Slobodan, the weather is one thing you shouldn't argue about with Canadians. BTW, I get usually my weather forecast from www.theweathernetwork.com (http://www.theweathernetwork.com) .
If you don't believe my unbiased reporting, here is a page with Toronto temperatures for the last 2 weeks.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/toronto/historic (https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/toronto/historic)
Look at Saturday, June 30, 4 and 5pm - 35C (95F), feels like 45C (113F). Even now at 9:30pm, the outside temperature it's still over 30C (88F) - feels like 37C. Great for my tomato plants, but too hot for me.
Toronto Weather History for the Previous 24 Hours - Sat, Jun 30
6:00 pm 33 °C Partly sunny. 28 km/h ↑ 59% 101.32 kPa 24 km
5:00 pm 35 °C Broken clouds. 26 km/h ↑ 53% 101.36 kPa 24 km
Further, if anything looks fake, it's what Slobodan posted below. We're supposed to believe that flat line in temperature (78F) over the course of time running from approx. 2PM through 7PM? And he's got the balls to believe that's accurate and call anything else fake news? The data is pretty obviously truncated at 78F over that time period and Slobodan should be ashamed to provide it, not notice this and call other's data fake. Pathetic.
-
... We're supposed to believe that flat line in temperature (78F) over the course of time running from approx. 2PM through 7PM? And he's got the balls to believe that's accurate and call anything else fake news? The data is pretty obviously truncated at 78F over that time period and Slobodan should be ashamed to provide it, not notice this and call other's data fake. Pathetic.
You are clutching at straws, apart from being personally insulting.
I provided my source as a screenshot. You are saying there is some conspiracy at Yahoo Weather (provider for the iPad weather app) to truncate Toronto temperatures? Seriously!?
-
Andrew, thank you for the correction. You beat me to it with your previous post. I didn't take my temperature gauge outside during the day, but even in the evening it felt like the hottest day this year. Compare that with January 5 when the temperature dropped to -23C (it felt like -33C).
Slobodan, you are obviously listening to the wrong channel. If there is in the future a discrepancy between Yahoo News and local reporting by yours truly, ignore Yahoo and trust me.
-
You are clutching at straws, apart from being personally insulting.
I provided my source as a screenshot. You are saying there is some conspiracy at Yahoo Weather (provider for the iPad weather app) to truncate Toronto temperatures? Seriously!?
Your data is rubbish and truncated plus doesn’t correlate even closely with others data nor is it possible to believe outside a bubble of unreality that the temperature would stay at an identical temp for so many (FIVE) hours. You’re busted presenting obvious FAKE news and you should man up to it and your hypocrisy sir!
And you have the nerve to even suggest I'm clutching at straws.
-
So, basically, for two loooong hours, Toronto airport reached 35C. Wow! Airports in summer have typically higher temperatures, given the vast horizontal expanses of concrete and asphalt. I hope Les doesn't live at the airport.
-
So, basically, for two loooong hours, Toronto airport reached 35C.
So basically for five hours, it was the identical temp your fake news shows? Give it up, you're busted and look ridiculous suggesting that's the case. Sad, very sad.
-
So, basically, for two loooong hours, Toronto airport reached 35C. Wow! Airports in summer have typically higher temperatures, given the vast horizontal expanses of concrete and asphalt. I hope Les doesn't live at the airport.
If you look up my previously supplied link, you'll see it wasn't only for the airport, but for the city of Toronto. Without harping on the exact number of minutes, it was very hot for the entire day.
I just checked the Miami weather. Right now, the temperature there is about the same in Toronto, but apparently they have now a major problem with sargassum see weeds and an unpleasant smell. Can you smell it?
Sargassum itself is not toxic, but once it washes ashore and begins to decay, it releases a strong, unpleasant odor, similar to rotten eggs. Truckloads of the stuff clogging beaches in Barbados, Guadaloupe, and Tobago forced officials to issue advisories to residents, while a major hotel in Antigua, The St. James Club, has had to close its doors until October 1. And it can be more than just a nuisance to beach goers. According to experts at the University of Miami, decaying mats tend to play host to biting insects like sea lice, while floating mats can trap floating debris.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/news/articles/brown-seaweed-sargassum-blooms-invading-florida-caribbean-beaches-bad-smell-sargasso-sea/105518/
-
So basically for five hours, it was the identical temp your fake news shows? Give it up, you're busted and look ridiculous suggesting that's the case. Sad, very sad.
If you were paying attention, that chart was showing temperatures for tomorrow, Sunday, as the iPad app does not show past temperatures.
So, again, for two looooong hours it reached 35C. So? what is the whole month of June like? In only four days the temperature went above 30C.
The chart is from Weather.com.
-
If you were paying attention, that chart was showing temperatures for tomorrow, Sunday, as the iPad app does not show past temperatures.
So, again, for two looooong hours it reached 35C. So? what is the whole month of June like? In only four days the temperature went above 30C.
The chart is from Weather.com.
Anyone who would accept identical temps over 5 hours, during that time of day, even as a prediction is foolish. Further, the actual data I provided was measured TODAY! You’ve lost massive credibility in your last couple posts, stop while you’re utterly behind. Enough of your fake news!
-
If you look up my previously supplied link, you'll see it wasn't only for the airport, but for the city of Toronto....
Sorry, Les, the link says "airport" at the top.
-
Sorry, Les, the link says "airport" at the top.
News flash, Toronto Airport just happens to be in Toronto. If you have as much difficulty reading a map as a weather report, I'm not sure anyone here can help you outside that unreality bubble you've proven exists today. And yes, I've actually been there too.
-
You are saying there is some conspiracy at Yahoo Weather (provider for the iPad weather app) to truncate Toronto temperatures? Seriously!?
Another rather hypocritical response in the form of a question after stating this:
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN? That would explain the fake news, as I can’t see anything remotely close to 35C.
Btw, are you getting your temperature from CNN Yahoo Weather? That would explain the fake news.
What comes around, goes around despite living inside the unreality bubble. ;)
-
?????
How many strawman's arguments do some 'participants' need to make a silly/nonsensical point.
Cheers,
bart
Probably as many as it takes until the recipient can clearly demonstrate why a particular argument is a straw man, and why the point in the argument is silly or nonsensical.
The most obvious example of a straw man argument, that immediately springs to mind, is the assertion by some people that those who are skeptical about the claimed role of CO2 in climate change, are Climate Change Deniers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The most fundamental aspect of climate is that it's always changing. I've never met a climate change denier, but if I were to, I would assume that such a person knows nothing whatsoever about the history of climate on our planet.
-
Sorry, Les, the link says "airport" at the top.
You are right, Slobodan, the link says Toronto Airport, I didn't notice that. I suspect that the airport is the (only) official spot for measuring the Toronto temperatures. As to the assumption that the airport has more concrete than other parts of the city that wouldn't hold truth, there is a lot of concrete (both in the horizontal and vertical directions) also in other parts of the city. Interestingly, nobody before raised this point.
Lake Ontario provides some cooling effect to the southern portion of the city close to the lake, but I bet most of Toronto experienced today the same high temperatures as the airport. The airport is in the northwest end. For the uninitiated, there is a city of Toronto and the so called Greater Toronto area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada. It consists of the central city of Toronto and the four regional municipalities surrounding it. I live in the northern end of GTA, about 20 miles north of Lake Ontario and 30 miles from the airport. Next time, we'll get such a hot day, I'll measure the temperature in my backyard and compare it with the airport readings. That's if I won't head up to some lake up north.
BTW, I had problems posting my reply, kept getting error messages that the Luminous website couldn't be reached - possibly because the temperature was too hot.
-
You are right, Slobodan, the link says Toronto Airport, I didn't notice that. I suspect that the airport is the (only) official spot for measuring the Toronto temperatures. As to the assumption that the airport has more concrete than other parts of the city that wouldn't hold truth, there is a lot of concrete (both in the horizontal and vertical directions) also in other parts of the city. Interestingly, nobody before raised this point...
Les, I did not say “more concrete,” I said “vast expanses of horizontal concrete.” Vertical structures create shade. My observation about airport temperatures is based on my memory from various cities across the world I lived in, where the hottest temperature would often be measured at airports. For instance, this:
“The highest temperature ever recorded in the Chicago city limits is an unofficial 109 °F (43 °C) on July 24, 1934, at Midway Airport. The official reading of 105 °F (41 °C) for that day was taken at the University of Chicago campus near the shoreline off Lake Michigan.”
-
Fascinating as the topic might be, even for those of us who don't live in Ontario, I'm not entirely convinced that argumentum ad Toronto airport is any more useful than ad hominem, although of course the airport is unlikely to be offended.
Can we get back on what has passed for track in this discussion?
Jeremy
-
OK, Jeremy, I won't pursue the actual temperatures at the Toronto airport, but will add that the dense and tall highrises in the city core make the downtowns hotter than the outlying areas. The concrete buildings retain the heat, and in addition they generate more heat by running their air-conditioning equipment and other electrical appliances.
Slobodan, in your example, the lower temperature at the University of Chicago campus (105F vs 109F at the airport) can be explained by its proximity to the lake which provides a definite cooling effect (especialy by a large and rather cold body of water such as Lake Michigan). The same thing happens near the Lake Ontario shore in Toronto, where the temperature is usually lower by several degrees than the midtown area.
The breezy dark corridors between a city's tallest buildings seem like shady respites from the blistering summer sun. But it turns out those shadowy urban canyons are actually making your city more hell-like.
https://gizmodo.com/why-tall-buildings-make-cities-hotter-1588242736
-
Fair enough, Les.
And now, back to our usual programming and ad hominem (not Les).
-
Two articles of interest in Today's New York Times. Heat wave in Great Britain and Ireland (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/world/europe/uk-ireland-heat-wave.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront) and a lack of rainfall is leading to localized drought. It was the 2nd hottest and driest June on record. Sure this might just be a one off and we won't know for sure for several more years if this is a trend or not.
Great Barrier Reef affected by increasing ocean temperatures. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/world/australia/great-barrier-reef.html) Scientists from Australia are increasingly worried that higher ocean temperatures are causing bleaching and a loss of coral in the reef. Large scale bleaching is occurring every six years now as opposed to the historically observed 27 years last century.
-
Great Barrier Reef Has Bounced Back From Near Extinction Five Times in the Last 30,000 Years
http://www.newsweek.com/great-barrier-reef-coral-reef-extinction-survival-946890
-
. . .and we won't know for sure for several more years if this is a trend or not.
It's always a trend. The only question is: how long a trend will it be? Climate on the earth is like the stock market, Alan. It fluctuates.
-
Two articles of interest in Today's New York Times. Heat wave in Great Britain and Ireland (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/world/europe/uk-ireland-heat-wave.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront) and a lack of rainfall is leading to localized drought. It was the 2nd hottest and driest June on record. Sure this might just be a one off and we won't know for sure for several more years if this is a trend or not.
In Quebec, there were so far 17 heat-related deaths this summer.
Montreal endured its sixth straight day of furnace-like temperatures as heat-related deaths across Quebec climbed to at least 17.
The base temperature in Montreal exceeded 31 C for the sixth day in a row on Wednesday, and it’s expected to rise to 35 C on Thursday – 46 C with the humidex, according to Environment Canada. (By comparison, the mercury didn’t rise above 30 C a single day in Montreal last summer).
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-death-toll-due-to-heat-wave-rises-in-quebec/
-
Climate in Europe is greatly effected by the warming Gulf Stream. Without this warm North Atlantic Drift, the UK and other places in Europe could be as cold as Canada - and up to 5 °C cooler. It would mean the average December temperature in London would plummet to about 2°C.
There's some speculation that the Gulf Stream being effected by climate change. So that could be causing less rain. Also, it would mean colder weather there not warmer. So while global warming would occur elsewhere, the UK and northern Europe would be getting colder.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2569640/what-is-the-gulf-stream-where-is-it-how-does-it-affect-uk-weather-and-why-does-it-cause-heavy-snow/
-
EPA Chief Pruitt resigns.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-resigns/index.html
-
If the warmer weather doesn't scare you, a new study linking the car pollution and diabetes may.
It’s fairly well known that a bad diet, a lack of exercise, and genetics can all contribute to type 2 diabetes. But a new global study points to an additional, surprising culprit: the air pollution emitted by cars and trucks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-reason-to-worry-about-air-pollution/564428/
-
If the warmer weather doesn't scare you, a new study linking the car pollution and diabetes may.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-reason-to-worry-about-air-pollution/564428/
You mean it's not the ice cream or chocolate cake?
-
I came across this bit about earth's tilt. How do we know that climate change, the claim of warming up, is not just part of the ice age/climate change/earth tilt rhythm?
Ray? Anyone?
"..The Earth’s axis of rotation is currently at an angle of 23.4º to the vertical, as measured with respect to the plane in which the planet orbits. The planet is slowly sitting up straighter; but once it reaches about 22.1º, in a bit more than 10,000 years or so, it will start to lean over again. Its obliquity nods up and down this way between 22.1º and 24.5º regularly every 41,000 years. The effect of this nodding on the planet’s seasons is one of the things which sets the rhythm of the ice ages..."
https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2018/07/07/empty-sky-empty-earth (https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2018/07/07/empty-sky-empty-earth)
-
Two articles of interest in Today's New York Times. Heat wave in Great Britain and Ireland (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/world/europe/uk-ireland-heat-wave.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront) and a lack of rainfall is leading to localized drought. It was the 2nd hottest and driest June on record. Sure this might just be a one off and we won't know for sure for several more years if this is a trend or not.
We had a similar, although more severe, heatwave in 1976. I remember it well, as I was taking my A-levels at the time and conditions in the examination hall were less than pleasant. There was a widespread drought, with water supplies to homes cut off and standpipes the only source. The government appointed a "minister for drought", who did a rain dance; within a short time half the country was flooded.
That was more than 40 years ago. Beware of confusing weather and climate.
Jeremy
-
We had a similar, although more severe, heatwave in 1976. I remember it well, as I was taking my A-levels at the time and conditions in the examination hall were less than pleasant. There was a widespread drought, with water supplies to homes cut off and standpipes the only source. The government appointed a "minister for drought", who did a rain dance; within a short time half the country was flooded.
That was more than 40 years ago. Beware of confusing weather and climate.
Jeremy
Always listen to the tribal elders. And beware their curses, too.
:-)
-
We need to get the rain dancers going at top speed in Colorado.
-
Climate in Europe is greatly effected by the warming Gulf Stream. Without this warm North Atlantic Drift, the UK and other places in Europe could be as cold as Canada - and up to 5 °C cooler. It would mean the average December temperature in London would plummet to about 2°C.
There's some speculation that the Gulf Stream being effected by climate change.
Hi Alan,
All explained, and then some, by this short video dating from 2010 (so nothing much new under the sun, other than things getting warmer on average): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmECHrOcFlc
Cheers,
Bart
-
Right, Bart. Is that the same science and research that was predicting a new ice age in the fifties?
Science isn't static.
"Is that the same science and research that stated the planets revolved around the earth in the 4th century BC?"
-
Science isn't static.
;D ;D ;D ;D :o
I hope you meant that to be funny, Welly. And welcome to LuLa.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D :o
I hope you meant that to be funny, Welly. And welcome to LuLa.
A bit of both :) And thank you!
-
Hi Alan,
All explained, and then some, by this short video dating from 2010 (so nothing much new under the sun, other than things getting warmer on average): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmECHrOcFlc
Cheers,
Bart
Bart Not sure what your movie states-I didn't watch it. But the video I linked to above and here again indicates that if it gets warmer generally in the world, the Gulf Stream will be disturbed enough so GB and lots of Europe will get colder because of the loss of the warming Gulf Stream effect.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2569640/what-is-the-gulf-stream-where-is-it-how-does-it-affect-uk-weather-and-why-does-it-cause-heavy-snow/
-
... How do we know that climate change, the claim of warming up, is not just part of the ice age/climate change/earth tilt rhythm? ...
Ask climatologists? Oh, yeah, I forgot; experts. I mean, what do they know?
-
Usually not all that much, Bill. A military definition of "expert" is: "a drip under pressure".
-
Experts are the most dangerous. First, they know sh$t. Second, the public trusts them blindly. But, as a psychiatrist, Bill should already know that.
-
I came across this bit about earth's tilt. How do we know that climate change, the claim of warming up, is not just part of the ice age/climate change/earth tilt rhythm?
Ray? Anyone?
Hi Alan,
It has been posted before, but since you're asking:
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&t=575
In addition, not only is the 'wobble' not the cause for the rapid (on the scale of geological events) increase of temperature, it's also not the strength of solar radiation itself that's causing it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=youtu.be&t=274
To repeat, there are three main active drivers of temperature:
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&t=104
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart Not sure what your movie states-I didn't watch it.
It answers your question. But feel free t ignore it if you are not looking for answers.
I still recommend that you do watch it though, at your leisure.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Totally unexpected problems cropped up in UK. Serious shortage of CO2. Not enough good stuff for beer production. Carbon dioxide shortage lead to beer rationing in the UK.
Booker, a major UK wholesaler owned by Tesco (TSCDY), has confirmed that it’s limiting customers such as bars and grocers to 10 cases of beer (300 cans) per brand a day, the most dramatic consequence to date of a shortage that also threatens food production across Europe.
https://citizentv.co.ke/lifestyle/carbon-dioxide-shortage-leads-beer-rationing-uk-205337/
-
Experts are the most dangerous. First, they know sh$t. Second, the public trusts them blindly. But, as a psychiatrist, Bill should already know that.
1. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm a psychologist.
2. The disdain for science is pretty high, mainly because most people are scientifically illiterate and too many people in the media & politics have been feeding them misrepresentations & pseudoscience for too long. To most people, the tentative nature of knowledge = nobody knows anything, therefore 'I can believe what makes me feel good.'
-
1. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm a psychologist.
2. The disdain for science is pretty high, mainly because most people are scientifically illiterate and too many people in the media & politics have been feeding them misrepresentations & pseudoscience for too long. To most people, the tentative nature of knowledge = nobody knows anything, therefore 'I can believe what makes me feel good.'
That's why many continue to smoke and to drink post-illnesses. They accept that doctors often know how to cure them, but, strangely, not why they got ill in the first place... such is pop culture.
-
Big mistake. They should be importing beer. Think of all the CO2 drinking beer generates.
-
The "sky is falling" twice as fast. Well, so they say.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180705110027.htm
-
We had a similar, although more severe, heatwave in 1976. I remember it well, as I was taking my A-levels at the time and conditions in the examination hall were less than pleasant. There was a widespread drought, with water supplies to homes cut off and standpipes the only source. The government appointed a "minister for drought", who did a rain dance; within a short time half the country was flooded.
That was more than 40 years ago. Beware of confusing weather and climate.
Jeremy
Good point, Jeremy. A major problem that causes so many people, especially younger people, to be alarmed about extreme weather events, from a climate perspective, is their lack of personal memories of similar events in the past.
You remember an even worse heat wave in 1976. If people were to live to the age of 200 years or more, with faultless memories, there would be far less alarm about these extreme weather events, because so many people would remember equally severe, or even more severe events, a hundred years ago or more.
Just recently, it is claimed that Glasgow has had its hottest day on record.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/28/uk-heatwave-glasgow-bakes-on-hottest-day-on-record
"Glasgow bakes on city’s hottest day on record"
However, at least the Guardian, to its credit, despite being pro-alarmist about AGW, does make the following very relevant point:
"The forecaster Sophie Yeomans said it was the warmest day of the year in Scotland, but it failed to beat the June record of 32.2C set in 1893 at Ochtertyre, in Perth and Kinross."
In other words, about 125 years ago, before anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have begun, there was a slightly hotter heat wave just a few miles from Glasgow; as the crow flies, about 30 miles away.
However, there's an even more relevant point that the Guardian didn't mention; the Urban Heat Island effect.
The population and urbanization of Glasgow has expanded enormously since 1893. During heat waves it is quite normal for temperatures in the city to be at least a degree or two hotter than in the surrounding areas, because of all the heat absorbed by buildings, pavements and black asphalt roads.
Yet, despite this Urban Heat Island effect, Glasgow failed to even reach the highest temperature experienced a few miles outside of the city way back in 1893.
The following site provides a detailed historical description of the extreme variations in weather in Great Britain going back as far as 4000 BC. From the 16th century A.D. onward, there's almost a year by year description. This is fascinating reading for those who are interested. It provides an excellent insight into the regular swings of extreme weather occurrences, from dry years to wet years, from hot years to cold years, and so on.
https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
Here's the description for the year 1893:
"A notably dry season over England and Wales. Some places in SE England had no rain for 60 consecutive days, from mid-March to mid-May with the longest absolute drought of all being at Mile End (London) from 4th March to 15th May. This (at 1993) is thought to be the longest period without measurable rain ever recorded in the British Isles. During the period March to June, in southeast and central-southern England, some areas experienced less than 30% of average rainfall & over a wider area of England & Wales, the anomaly was under 45%.
Notably persistent warmth over period April to June. The combined effect of the drought, above average temperatures and often intense/prolonged sunshine meant that by the 21st of June, many agricultural areas of southern England and the east Midlands were undergoing great stress: the ground parched, meadows burnt dry with many crops declared a failure. Fruit was withering (not helped by some sharp/late frosts in May) and the hay crop was much reduced; root crops also severely affected. Using the climatological definition of spring (March, April & May), this year's such-named season was warmest (with 2011/q.v.) in the CET record. (See article R. Brugge, 'Weather' May 1993)."
-
There you go again, Ray, confusing everyone with historical facts. Shame on you.
-
There you go again, Ray, confusing everyone with historical facts. Shame on you.
I'll bear the shame in the interests of truth. ;)
-
Big mistake. They should be importing beer. Think of all the CO2 drinking beer generates.
Russ, you have it wrong. When it comes to beer consumption, it's CO2 in and methane out.
-
Russ, you have it wrong. When it comes to beer consumption, it's CO2 in and methane out.
"A new study by researchers in Sweden has found that Christmas trees absorb methane, the second most important greenhouse gas next to carbon dioxide."
Hallelujah! ;D
"In contrast to earlier studies of CH4 (methane) exchange by plants, we find a net consumption by all plants studied both in situ and in the laboratory," the researchers write in the journal."
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/439/20121226/christmas-trees-absorb-greenhouse-gas-methane-study.htm
-
I presume that the CO2 absorption takes place primarily before the pine trees become Christmas trees.
-
There you go again, Ray, confusing everyone with historical facts. Shame on you.
A historical fact. A single datum point doesn't tell us anything about anything, other than that datum point. The general trend is what matters, and the science gives us information into prehistory and the facts point to a fast & sustained warming, with human activity contributing significantly to that trend. People can cherry-pick to suit their philosophical, political, religious, whatever point-of-view, but that doesn't alter the science.
-
A historical fact. A single datum point doesn't tell us anything about anything, other than that datum point.
Alan mentioned 'historical facts' (plural). Did you miss my link to a very comprehensive and detailed description of the past history of exteme weather events in Britain?
"The following site provides a detailed historical description of the extreme variations in weather in Great Britain going back as far as 4000 BC. From the 16th century A.D. onward, there's almost a year by year description. This is fascinating reading for those who are interested. It provides an excellent insight into the regular swings of extreme weather occurrences, from dry years to wet years, from hot years to cold years, and so on."
https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
-
I presume that the CO2 absorption takes place primarily before the pine trees become Christmas trees.
As does the CH4 absorption. ;) However, there seems to be some uncertainty about the mechanism of the absorption of methane by certain plants. Here's the original study:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053592
There are a number of mystifying acronyms in this study. However, the following quote near the end of the article seems reasonably clear.
"This indicates that the CH4 sink is located somewhere inside the leaves and that the diffusion rate is controlled by the stomatal conductance."
-
Thanks for researching it, Ray. It was a pleasant article to start my day.
The interesting thing about the stomatal conductance is that the predawn water potential of the leaf remains consistent throughout most of the year while the midday water potential of the leaf shows a variation due to the seasons. For example, canopy stomatal conductance has a higher water potential in July than in October (presumably in the northern hemisphere - not in Australia).
-
Russ, you have it wrong. When it comes to beer consumption, it's CO2 in and methane out.
You're right, Les. I thought of that after I'd made the post, but CO2 sounded better. Just following the usual approach to the way things are done on this thread.
-
Alan mentioned 'historical facts' (plural). Did you miss my link to a very comprehensive and detailed description of the past history of exteme weather events in Britain?
"The following site provides a detailed historical description of the extreme variations in weather in Great Britain going back as far as 4000 BC. From the 16th century A.D. onward, there's almost a year by year description. This is fascinating reading for those who are interested. It provides an excellent insight into the regular swings of extreme weather occurrences, from dry years to wet years, from hot years to cold years, and so on."
https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
Yes, but they're individual, isolated events, notable for being exceptions. Hence the need to look at trends instead.
-
Like the "trend" shown in the "hockey stick," Bill?
-
There you go again, Ray, confusing everyone with historical facts. Shame on you.
Indeed! Isolated weather events are not climate but weather.
However, if the frequency of such weather events is increasing, then that may be a sign of a changing climate. One would have to analyze a multi-decadal trend to identify climate 'change' (change, as in a trend).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Like the "trend" shown in the "hockey stick," Bill?
Yes, like multi-decadal trends (which tends to flatten out the solar-cycles, which makes the trends easier to see).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, like multi-decadal trends (which tends to flatten out the solar-cycles, which makes the trends easier to see).
Cheers,
Bart
Are you aware that the hockey stick hoax has been dispelled a looooong time ago?
-
Yes, like multi-decadal trends (which tends to flatten out the solar-cycles, which makes the trends easier to see).
Cheers,
Bart
In other words, amplify the baloney.
-
Don't you know that the hockey stick ruse has been dispelled a looooong time ago?
No Frans, tell us all about it:
http://www.temperaturerecord.org/
and
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Cheers,
Bart
-
In other words, amplify the baloney.
Averaging does not amplify (in fact it does the opposite), so I'm at a loss to what you mean.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...so I'm at a loss to what you mean.
GIGO
-
GIGO
Ditto.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, if the trend was a global cooling before we spoiled it with the industrial revolution, we might have slowed down another ice age, after all. Yay!
(https://skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif)
-
So, if the trend was a global cooling before we spoiled it with the industrial revolution, we might have slowed down another ice age, after all. Yay!
(https://skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif)
Oh, for heaven's sake ...
-
Yes, but they're individual, isolated events, notable for being exceptions. Hence the need to look at trends instead.
Isolated? Surely as a psychologist you would understand that everything is connected. If a butterfly flaps its wings in South America, a storm might eventually result in Europe. (Not to be taken literally, of course. It's just an exaggeration to get the point across that everything is connected in some way and to some degree.) ;)
The impression I get from reading that detailed history of the weather in Great Britain, is that the hot or cold, and dry or wet spells are not exceptions but are fairly regular occurrences which continue to the present day, despite the slight, average warming trend that is claimed to be caused by CO2 emissions.
Here's an example of the 4 years from 1651-1654, a period which was broadly within the Little Ice Age.
Four successive fine (i.e. often dry / hot) summers but that of 1651 appears to have been 'fine' only across England; Scotland though is specifically included for the other years in the various chronicles. 1651 in particular across England (only?) was noted as being dry with a 'scorching' summer - a 'great' drought with excessive heat. Kent is specifically mentioned (continental influence). It may be that only the southern half of Britain was so favoured, as there are notes that in Scotland, this year (1651) was subject to even 'greater dearth' than the preceding year. In 1652, the summer of this year was noted for 'extraordinary drought' across the whole of Scotland, with high temperatures and little rain - great impact upon agricultural production, both good and bad; in England, 1652 saw a good harvest, particularly as regards fruit. The summer of 1653 was also described as being one of 'great drought & excessive heat' across England. From October 1653 until 21st March 1654 (i.e. across nearly the entire 'winter-half' of the year), the weather was apparently benign, mild & dry; likened to a 'second summer'. In Scotland, the extended winter period 1653-1654 was notably dry, which of course would have been a disaster for autumn/winter-sown crops. The summer of 1654 was 'dry & scorching'. Although drought would have impacted on some arable crops (and farm animals depending upon the feed), other agriculture, such as fruit growers, had a bumper harvest during 1654. From Edinburgh & Fife, great lack of water (wells drying up), with lesser problems in the west.
-
Isolated? Surely as a psychologist you would understand that everything is connected.
[Snipped for brevity ...]
Here's an example of the 4 years from 1651-1654, ...
YES, isolated.
You exhibit a typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation.
Not much of a challenge for a psychologist, I'd imagine.
Cheers,
Bart
-
[Snipped for brevity ...]
YES, isolated.
You exhibit a typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation.
Not much of a challenge for a psychologist, I'd imagine.
Cheers,
Bart
Quite. Isolated bits of data. Physicists, geologists, meteorologists & climatologists have been examining the data across millennia.
-
YES, isolated.
You exhibit a typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation.
Not much of a challenge for a psychologist, I'd imagine.
One observation that contributes to my skepticism about the validity of the AGW hypothesis, is the quality and rationality of the arguments presented by those who support and believe in the hypothesis.
For example, on this forum, I provided a link to a very detailed record of past weather events in Great Britain, going back as far as 4000 BC. In more recent centuries, such as the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century, the record summarized the weather for almost every single year in each century.
The detail presented would fill a large book, or would represent a 6 hour video, or maybe 10 hours, depending on how fast the presenter spoke.
So to give readers an idea of the sorts of details and descriptions that are presented on the site, I extracted an example which covered a four year period in the middle of the 17th century, and which also revealed the limitations of the available evidence, because the records for Scotland during part of that 4 year period were lacking.
So now I am accused of cherry picking, even though the weather during those 4 years was not conducive to the growth of cherries. ;D
However, since I'm a rational and naturally inquisitive person, I'd like to learn how I could have better chosen an extract as an example, which wouldn't have resulted in the criticism 'typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation'.
Stretching my imagination, the only completely unbiased method I can think of, would be to print out every description of every weather summary on that website, which would be several hundred, or a thousand or more, fold up the printed paper for each description, place them all in a box, then extract one of them, as in a lottery.
The result could be a very brief and banal description of average weather for a particular year, or it could be the one I actually chose.
What method would you recommend, Bart?
-
You could start by getting a clue about the difference between climate and weather, and follow up with the difference between data and anecdotes.
Get back to us when you've got those sorted.
-
You could start by getting a clue about the difference between climate and weather, and follow up with the difference between data and anecdotes.
Get back to us when you've got those sorted.
As I wrote to Bart, my skepticism about climate change is reinforced by the inane comments by many people who support the AGW hypothesis.
Your above comment adds to that. How on earth could you possible think that I don't know the difference between weather and climate? :o
In post #944, the moderator, Jeremy, wrote:
"We had a similar, although more severe, heatwave in 1976. I remember it well, as I was taking my A-levels at the time and conditions in the examination hall were less than pleasant. There was a widespread drought, with water supplies to homes cut off and standpipes the only source. The government appointed a "minister for drought", who did a rain dance; within a short time half the country was flooded.
That was more than 40 years ago. Beware of confusing weather and climate."
I responded with a post beginning, "Good point, Jeremy. A major problem that causes so many people, especially younger people, to be alarmed about extreme weather events, from a climate perspective, is their lack of personal memories of similar events in the past."
Of course I understand that climate is an average of weather over a particular period. Climate is an average of weather over a 10 year period, a 20 year period, a 50 year period, a 100 year period, a thousand year period, a million year period, and so on.
Whatever period you choose to examine, the climate will be different, within that period of time compared to another period of time, just as the weather will likely be different in the shorter period of time, such as each year.
Of course there's a difference between precise, instrumental data, and anecdotes. But that doesn't mean that anecdotes, personal accounts by observers, newspaper reports, and so on, are not true. They are just not necessarily as precise as instrumental records, although sometimes they might be more precise, as in the case of a thermometer at an airport or urban environment producing an exaggerated reading due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
If the Thames in London freezes over, during a particularly cold winter, we know from anecdotes that the temperature must be below 0 degrees C. However, thermometers are required to measure precisely how much below 0 degrees C the temperature was.
-
As I wrote to Bart, my skepticism about climate change is reinforced by the inane comments by many people who support the AGW hypothesis.
It's not a hypothesis. The Carbon isotope ratio proves that the warming is caused by CO2 that originates from old fossil plant sources and the Carbon / Oxygen ratio shows that it comes from the burning of that fossil fuel. These are facts, measurable facts, whether you choose to deny them or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s
Our land 'management' doesn't help the process of recapturing that Carbon either, and while the oceans continue the slow process of acidification by absorbing almost half of that CO2 from the air, the increasing water temperature cannot absorb as much as colder water could.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In the comments section just below Bart's referenced YouTube video, this:
I have dedicated my life to debunking global warming hoaxers. The hoaxers are religiously liberal. Liberal fundamentalism is responsible for most of the world's suffering. Liberals have invaded science for their own political gains with global warming hoaxing.
How do you counter this kind of thinking? Is there any reason to even try?
-
As I wrote to Bart, my skepticism about climate change is reinforced by the inane comments by many people who support the AGW hypothesis.
Your above comment adds to that. How on earth could you possible think that I don't know the difference between weather and climate? :o
Because, amongst other things, you wrote stuff like this:
Of course there's a difference between precise, instrumental data, and anecdotes. But that doesn't mean that anecdotes, personal accounts by observers, newspaper reports, and so on, are not true. They are just not necessarily as precise as instrumental records, although sometimes they might be more precise, as in the case of a thermometer at an airport or urban environment producing an exaggerated reading due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
where you missed the whole point. An anecdote is a single data point, dubious in itself (as you managed to grasp) and also dubious if it is selected by an observer and not forming part of a consistent suite of measurements. Bart has presented such data countless times but you don't seem to have got the message. Peter has it right when he says "How do you counter this kind of thinking? Is there any reason to even try?"
-
In the comments section just below Bart's referenced YouTube video, this:
I have dedicated my life to debunking global warming hoaxers. The hoaxers are religiously liberal. Liberal fundamentalism is responsible for most of the world's suffering. Liberals have invaded science for their own political gains with global warming hoaxing.
How do you counter this kind of thinking? Is there any reason to even try?
You might enjoy the book Fantasyland by Kurt Andersen https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902/ (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902/).
-
You might enjoy the book Fantasyland by Kurt Andersen https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902/ (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/209776/fantasyland-by-kurt-andersen/9780812978902/).
Another liberal's belief that only liberals know the Truth. The rest are Deplorables who live in flyover country.
-
Hillary must have gotten advice from Anderson which is why she lost.
-
Another liberal's belief that only liberals know the Truth. The rest are Deplorables who live in flyover country.
You’ve read it?
-
You’ve read it?
No. But I read a short interview he did and understand his thinking on the subject. He's just as biased as the people he purports to be.
-
Because, amongst other things, you wrote stuff like this:
where you missed the whole point. An anecdote is a single data point, dubious in itself (as you managed to grasp) and also dubious if it is selected by an observer and not forming part of a consistent suite of measurements.
An anedote is a single data point? Really!! I've never heard of that definition. I would describe a single data point as a 'datum'.
It was you who introduced the term 'anecdote', which usually means 'an amusing, fictional story'. The meteorological site I referred to appears to have used the best evidence available to them, including proxy data such as tree rings and ice-core data, as well as instrumental records when they became available in later centuries. The narratives and newspaper reports are used in the absence of scientific measurements and/or to confirm such measurements and give a broader picture.
Following is the introduction to the records listed on that site:
"Much of the information contained in these records must of necessity be 'tentative' to say the least! Up to about 1000 years ago, we only have archaelogical evidence to reconstruct the record: some Roman chroniclers provide cursory evidence for the Romano-Celtic / British era, but it is not until roughly from AD 800 that documentary records make a major contribution - and of course, the era of instrumental record doesn't really start until the 17th century, and even then, inconsistencies / errors in the instrumentation make the early record questionable.
Prior to the age of scientific enquiry, the climatological data have been reconstructed using 'proxy' data, such as tree ring records (dendroclimatology), ice-core sampling, estate records, tales of war and the administration of great kings, monastic lists etc."
https://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
Bart has presented such data countless times but you don't seem to have got the message. Peter has it right when he says "How do you counter this kind of thinking? Is there any reason to even try?"
As I've mentioned before, a few times, I used to accept the narrative about the alarming consequences of rising CO2 levels. I had no reason to doubt it. I used to listen to interviews of famous scientists such as James Lovelock, expressing their concerns. I assumed that almost all scientists were of a similar opinion, and one of my topics of conversation among friends, on the issue of AGW, was, 'Why aren't we taking more positive action to reduce CO2 levels?' We know that electric cars are technologically feasible. 50 years ago in England, the milkman used to deliver the milk in the early hours of the morning, driving an electric, battery-operated van. Why doesn't the government introduce a moratorium on the contstruction of petrol-driven vehicles, and encourage the development of the electric car which would take over, by decree, at a specific time in the future, say in 20 years time?
You should now be able to see that any claims that 'I haven't got the message' are false. ;)
-
An anecdote is a single data point? Really!! I've never heard of that definition.
It's not a definition; it's a description.
It was you who introduced the term 'anecdote', which usually means 'an amusing, fictional story'.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdote
As I've mentioned before, a few times, I used to accept the narrative about the alarming consequences of rising CO2 levels. I had no reason to doubt it. I used to listen to interviews of famous scientists such as James Lovelock, expressing their concerns. I assumed that almost all scientists were of a similar opinion, and one of my topics of conversation among friends, on the issue of AGW, was, 'Why aren't we taking more positive action to reduce CO2 levels?' We know that electric cars are technologically feasible. 50 years ago in England, the milkman used to deliver the milk in the early hours of the morning, driving an electric, battery-operated van. Why doesn't the government introduce a moratorium on the contstruction of petrol-driven vehicles, and encourage the development of the electric car which would take over, by decree, at a specific time in the future, say in 20 years time?
You should now be able to see that any claims that 'I haven't got the message' are false. ;)
Good to hear, though a little strange that you express this enlightenment as a past state. Perhaps once you had the message but lost it? That can happen with the death of neurons. Anyway, I look forward to seeing fewer claims that isolated extreme weather events occurring in the past have any relevance whatsoever to the issue of global climate.
-
It's not a definition; it's a description.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdote
Good to hear, though a little strange that you express this enlightenment as a past state. Perhaps once you had the message but lost it? That can happen with the death of neurons. Anyway, I look forward to seeing fewer claims that isolated extreme weather events occurring in the past have any relevance whatsoever to the issue of global climate.
If you can think of part-time, situational virginity, you are close to understanding the ethic.
:-)
-
Good to hear, though a little strange that you express this enlightenment as a past state. Perhaps once you had the message but lost it? That can happen with the death of neurons.
No. I'm not suffering from Alzheimers (yet ;) ). I remember the messages clearly. I changed my mind as a result of my own investigation into the issue, which was motivated by my natural, inquisitive nature and my concern about the serious subject of human welfare on a global scale.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing fewer claims that isolated extreme weather events occurring in the past have any relevance whatsoever to the issue of global climate.
What a strange idea. It seems obvious to me that there is no climate without weather. It is weather that people experience, and extreme weather events that are the major concern.
Extreme weather events are never isolated. They are all a part of the balance created by nature. When we have very dry or drought conditions in Australia, usually associated with the El Nino effect of ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), the rain that we hoped to get is sent to South America.
Likewise, during the resulting La Nina weather event, which usually follows on from the El Nino event, Australia experiences wet conditions whereas South America experiences dry conditions. There's always a balance.
-
..l I look forward to seeing fewer claims that isolated extreme weather events occurring in the past have any relevance whatsoever to the issue of global climate.
And I look forward to seeing fewer posts/news of the kind “the hottest day/year/area on record...” posing as “proof” of the global warming.
-
And I look forward to seeing fewer posts/news of the kind “the hottest day/year/area on record...” posing as “proof” of the global warming.
Even if their increasing frequency indicates a (changing) trend?
I'd agree that isolated events are not that informative, but when they start changing a pattern/trend, they can be valuable to take note of.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A lot of the hot weather we experienced on the Eastern United States had been caused by the jet stream moving North. So would that indicate climate change or just weather?
-
weather
-
Ok I did some research. This study claims the jet stream moving north is caused by climate change and contributes to hotter and colder weather snaps.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02022018/cold-weather-polar-vortex-jet-stream-explained-global-warming-arctic-ice-climate-change
-
ROTFL!
-
ROTFL!
Don't laugh Russ, this is a serious matter. During the last heat spell caused by the jet stream moving north, I couldn't get my A/C to get down to setpoint. It got uncomfortably hot. Last year, my A/C mechanic told me we're leaking coolant. So now my A/C leak is contributing to anthropogenic warming and damaging the ozone layer. :)
-
Don't laugh Russ, this is a serious matter. During the last heat spell caused by the jet stream moving north, I couldn't get my A/C to get down to setpoint. It got uncomfortably hot. Last year, my A/C mechanic told me we're leaking coolant. So now my A/C leak is contributing to anthropogenic warming and damaging the ozone layer. :)
Did you get the AC fixed? Only if it is a really old AC unit do you need to worry about ozone damage. The newer AC units are also way more energy efficient so your electric bill is lower. We replace both the furnace and AC unit three years ago during the fall and got $2K off the price and a 10 year warranty.
We keep our AC at 78F and on really hot days it pretty much runs constantly until about midnight. I also have a dehumidifier in the family room so the AC doesn't have to do all the work of getting the moisture down to a reasonable level.
-
Did you get the AC fixed? Only if it is a really old AC unit do you need to worry about ozone damage. The newer AC units are also way more energy efficient so your electric bill is lower. We replace both the furnace and AC unit three years ago during the fall and got $2K off the price and a 10 year warranty.
We keep our AC at 78F and on really hot days it pretty much runs constantly until about midnight. I also have a dehumidifier in the family room so the AC doesn't have to do all the work of getting the moisture down to a reasonable level.
My wife would divorce me if I kept the setpoint at 78F. Ours is set at 72F and on those hot days recently when it got up to 95F outside, I couldn't get it below 74F (in the afternoon with increased sunload). But I'm very efficient running about 10,000KWH annually in 2100 square feet. The A/C unit's 8 years old. A Carrier unit. Probably built in Mexico. :)
-
My wife would divorce me if I kept the setpoint at 78F. Ours is set at 72F and on those hot days recently when it got up to 95F outside, I couldn't get it below 74F (in the afternoon with increased sunload). But I'm very efficient running about 10,000KWH annually in 2100 square feet. The A/C unit's 8 years old. A Carrier unit. Probably built in Mexico. :)
It's not surprising that you couldn't get it below 74F with that kind of heat outside. We have a split level house and piss-poor heating ducts which makes for very uneven temperatures throughout. There's not much we can do about it short of a major renovation which we are not going to do. The house is destined to be torn down when we leave as the property is worth three times what the dwelling is. Someone will build a very nice 'big' home on our lot.
I'm surprised your 8 year old A/C was leaking coolant. I've not been impressed with Carrier quality. We had issues with our furnace on and off over the years and when it came time to replace we got a Lennox system.
-
What a profligate bloody lot you are!
I have air-con at home, installled eons ago when one room was a short-lived (very) darkroom. The car cost more because it came with "climate" installed along with another load of useless, expensive electronic junk I never use and don't even know how to use. I never switch on either system, which just makes reality more difficult when you are forced to exit your little cocoon of self-imposed ice-age.
Get real and join life with Mama Nature! She loves you, baby, and if you live by her rules you will be healthy and able to face reality without panting, waving pretty, decorated lace fans and getting little tizzy-fits when you break a little sweat! It could even improve your chances in the mating game: somebody once wrote that girls like a little male perspiration... when it's fresh, that is.
-
What a profligate bloody lot you are!
I have air-con at home, installled eons ago when one room was a short-lived (very) darkroom. The car cost more because it came with "climate" installed along with another load of useless, expensive electronic junk I never use and don't even know how to use. I never switch on either system, which just makes reality more difficult when you are forced to exit your little cocoon of self-imposed ice-age.
Get real and join life with Mama Nature! She loves you, baby, and if you live by her rules you will be healthy and able to face reality without panting, waving pretty, decorated lace fans and getting little tizzy-fits when you break a little sweat! It could even improve your chances in the mating game: somebody once wrote that girls like a little male perspiration... when it's fresh, that is.
Move to the Washington DC area and see if you can live without air conditioning!! I don't like A/C myself other than to get the humidity down to a reasonable level but with summer days of high heat and humidity it gets quite bad.
-
I am not going to get drawn into the debate but I will say one thing. The Koch brothers, their supporters and their fellow travellers must be laughing their heads off at how handsomely the billions they have poured into their campaign of disinformation, obfuscation and ad hominem attacks on scientists where AGW is concerned has paid off.
Denialism comes directly from those who have the most to lose by a move away from fossil fuels and from those politicians who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. It does not come from credible scientists. It does not come from anyone with the experience and knowledge to actually understand what they are talking about.
-
I am not going to get drawn into the debate but I will say one thing...
Too late. It's like heroin. You're hooked.
-
What a profligate bloody lot you are!
I have air-con at home, installled eons ago when one room was a short-lived (very) darkroom. The car cost more because it came with "climate" installed along with another load of useless, expensive electronic junk I never use and don't even know how to use. I never switch on either system, which just makes reality more difficult when you are forced to exit your little cocoon of self-imposed ice-age.
Get real and join life with Mama Nature! She loves you, baby, and if you live by her rules you will be healthy and able to face reality without panting, waving pretty, decorated lace fans and getting little tizzy-fits when you break a little sweat! It could even improve your chances in the mating game: somebody once wrote that girls like a little male perspiration... when it's fresh, that is.
Live in equilibrium with nature, are you mad? We insist on being active during the hottest parts of the day, you can't do that if it's too hot. Other mammals understand this.
-
Live in equilibrium with nature, are you mad? We insist on being active during the hottest parts of the day, you can't do that if it's too hot. Other mammals understand this.
NYC has rules for carriage horses: "Temperature Restrictions: Carriage horses are prohibited from working when the temperature is 18 degrees F or below, or when the temperature is 90 degrees F or above, or the wet bulb is 85 degrees F or above. [There is no consideration for the humidity index or wind chill factor.]"
Here's all the regulations. Horses in NYC have more protection than people. We can work the latter at any temperature. :)
http://banhdc.org/archives/ch-fact-20060511.html (http://banhdc.org/archives/ch-fact-20060511.html)
-
Denialism. . .
Wow. Now there's a word you ought to define, so we know where you stand.
-
Hi guys,
A couple of observations on the AC thing and I'm out of this thread :)
I can remember being told by a contractor when I was specing out a new AC/HW/Furnace system for our house that AC systems are designed so as not to lower the temperature more than 20F below the ambient air. The reasoning was that it would be too much for many people's bodies to cope with.
Again, if memory serves, he explained that this began happening in the 20's-30's with the advent of AC in movie theaters. Apparently there were quite a few cases of people having heart attacks after emerging from the very cool theaters into the outside heat and humidity.
Anyway, in the 60's to the 80's I was a supermarket meat cutter. The cutting room was typically kept at 45F with the walkin cooler being around 35F or so. I also was a fairly heavy smoker in those days, having picked up the habit while in Uncle Sam's employ. We had several days in a row where the temp was right around 100F during the day with brutal humidity. Anyway, after spending 8 hours in the 45 degree back room I punched out and headed for my car outside. I swear to God, it felt like the first couple of breaths were not going to work!! After that I learned to hang out tin the store for a few minutes before heading outside!
-
Hi guys,
A couple of observations on the AC thing and I'm out of this thread :)
I can remember being told by a contractor when I was specing out a new AC/HW/Furnace system for our house that AC systems are designed so as not to lower the temperature more than 20F below the ambient air. The reasoning was that it would be too much for many people's bodies to cope with.
Again, if memory serves, he explained that this began happening in the 20's-30's with the advent of AC in movie theaters. Apparently there were quite a few cases of people having heart attacks after emerging from the very cool theaters into the outside heat and humidity.
Anyway, in the 60's to the 80's I was a supermarket meat cutter. The cutting room was typically kept at 45F with the walkin cooler being around 35F or so. I also was a fairly heavy smoker in those days, having picked up the habit while in Uncle Sam's employ. We had several days in a row where the temp was right around 100F during the day with brutal humidity. Anyway, after spending 8 hours in the 45 degree back room I punched out and headed for my car outside. I swear to God, it felt like the first couple of breaths were not going to work!! After that I learned to hang out tin the store for a few minutes before heading outside!
Living in Canada in winter trains you to go from a heated indoors to a viciously cold outdoors. :)
-
Living in Canada in winter trains you to go from a heated indoors to a viciously cold outdoors. :)
Well, it will get better when the climate warms up. :)
-
Well, it will get better when the climate warms up. :)
It might not, we might just wilder swings.
-
Living in Canada in winter trains you to go from a heated indoors to a viciously cold outdoors. :)
That only the first few months in the year. Now, it's from cooled indoors to viciously hot outdoors.
-
That only the first few months in the year. Now, it's from cooled indoors to viciously hot outdoors.
Really? You got any data to support your claim?
-
Really? You got any data to support your claim?
If you mean the cooled indoor temperature, I don't turn my A/C on until it gets over 28C.
The outdoor temperatures were much higher in Ontario this summer than the last summer. I've been swimming or just cooling off in several lakes and rivers, including Lake Ontario and Superior.
Lake Superior was still numbingly cold, but yesterday I swam in Lake Simcoe which was quite balmy (23-25C, depending on the exact location and time of day).
Here is a screen shot from Weather Canada site showing temperatures for the first week of July. Saturday, June 30 was the hottest day, reaching 35.5C (Humidex 45C).
-
It's not a hypothesis. The Carbon isotope ratio proves that the warming is caused by CO2 that originates from old fossil plant sources and the Carbon / Oxygen ratio shows that it comes from the burning of that fossil fuel. These are facts, measurable facts, whether you choose to deny them or not.
I never realised that, Bart. ;) So Obama was right when he claimed 'the science is settled'? ;)
If that's the case, I don't think we can afford to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on climate research. Wouldn't it be better to retrain most of those climatologists in more rigorous scientific disciplines, so they could assist in the development of more efficient solar panels and other types of renewables?
Oops! I recall that you wrote in post #850, "DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?). In fact, science will never be settled but it will evolve with new insights based on better data."
That seems a bit confusing, Bart. What term describes a proven scientific theory that is not settled? ;)
-
Ray, Interesting article about North American forest CO2 sequestration. But I don;t understand what the 22% means. Here're the questions I sent to one of the researchers. Maybe you can clarify.
What does the 22% limit mean in real terms relative to the amount of CO2 that will be sequestered? In other words, how has the 78% sequestered?, how much? over what time period? The 22% could have been 30% or 15% but it has no meaning in itself.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05132-5
-
Ray, it would be like me saying that the people in North America have a life span expected to last another 22%. What would that mean? What did the researcher mean?
-
Alan,
From the article...
In addition, we calculated a ratio of the current vs. future modeled biomass in a geographic context, which summarizes the extent of current biomass approaching the future biomass under the best-case scenario (no disturbance). As an example, this ratio is 0.780 ± 0.438 for the current vs. the 2080s RCP8.5 future (Fig. 4), that is, the current forest biomass is on average 78% relative to the future biomass for the 2080s under the RCP8.5 best-case scenario. Because of the no-disturbance assumption, the actual future biomass is likely to be lower, and the actual ratio is likely to be higher, indicating that the biomass is likely to be even more saturated than 78%. In other words, under the unlikely best circumstances of no disturbances, North American forest carbon will only increase at most 22% over the current level to the 2080s
-
Alan,
From the article...
In addition, we calculated a ratio of the current vs. future modeled biomass in a geographic context, which summarizes the extent of current biomass approaching the future biomass under the best-case scenario (no disturbance). As an example, this ratio is 0.780 ± 0.438 for the current vs. the 2080s RCP8.5 future (Fig. 4), that is, the current forest biomass is on average 78% relative to the future biomass for the 2080s under the RCP8.5 best-case scenario. Because of the no-disturbance assumption, the actual future biomass is likely to be lower, and the actual ratio is likely to be higher, indicating that the biomass is likely to be even more saturated than 78%. In other words, under the unlikely best circumstances of no disturbances, North American forest carbon will only increase at most 22% over the current level to the 2080s
Ah, now I get it!
:-)
-
What does that mean in English in 25 words or less. :)
-
unless we plant significantly more, it won't have much more effect. 11 words.
Note: there is a lot of spread in the extrapolated model prediction for 2080 - ~ +/- 50%.
-
unless we plant significantly more, it won't have much more effect. 11 words.
Note: there is a lot of spread in the extrapolated model prediction for 2080 - ~ +/- 50%.
I don't know about planting. But did they consider additional forestry and thus more carbon sink due to raising temperatures? They seemed to have made an awful lot of assumptions. GIGO?
-
Ray, Interesting article about North American forest CO2 sequestration. But I don;t understand what the 22% means. Here're the questions I sent to one of the researchers. Maybe you can clarify.
What does the 22% limit mean in real terms relative to the amount of CO2 that will be sequestered? In other words, how has the 78% sequestered?, how much? over what time period? The 22% could have been 30% or 15% but it has no meaning in itself.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05132-5
Alan,
I haven't got much time to reply because I'm busy preparing for a trip to China. However, my first impression of the modeling study is that, like most models, it restricts or limits itself to the consideration of just a few factors; in this case, the effects of temperature and precipitation changes in circumstances where there is no significant deforestation or afforestation.
The study doesn't, for example, consider the enhanced growth due to any increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
A general principle is that young forests sequester carbon more rapidly as they grow, than mature forests.
To quote from the article:
"Across forest types, higher temperature generally increases the saturated aboveground biomass but decreases the half-saturation stand age; more abundant precipitation increases both the saturated biomass and half-saturation age."
Following are other relevant quotes, at the risk of being accused of cherry picking. ;)
"Our analysis comes with several possible limitations. First, it does not consider environmental change factors other than climate (temperature and precipitation). Changes in atmospheric composition, such as CO2 and nitrogen, have been shown to enhance forest growth. On the one hand, our past and current periods (1990–2016) might not be sufficiently long to detect the CO2 and nitrogen fertilization effects. On the other hand, our future periods (2020s, 2050s, 2080s) might have different levels of CO2 concentration and nitrogen deposition than today, and they could affect forest dynamics and biomass. The potential impacts of CO2 and nitrogen fertilization are knowledge gaps that worth further investigation."
"Second, our study could miss the influences of future land-use changes on forest biomass, such as afforestation and deforestation from urban growth, conversion to other types by agriculture practices, and woody encroachment into grasslands. All these changes might affect forest carbon sequestration potential as forests grow and recover. "
"Finally, our analysis does not include the belowground components due to data limitation. Belowground carbon pools (eg., root and soil carbon} have been shown to have different recovery trajectories and responses to climate change compared with aboveground componenets. Therefore, our results should be specifically limited to the aboveground biomass carbon."
-
Ray, I noticed those important exclusions as well. So without including these important variables which they knowingly excluded in their analysis, how can they make the conclusions they did? All their studies, mathematics, and opaque writing arrives at a conclusion that is meaningless. They might as well be guessing.
-
PS Enjoy your trip to China. Bring back some pictures.
-
Important development - feeding seaweed to cows has helped some farmers reduce methane gas produced by their cattle by 20%. Of course, switching your eating habits from steaks to seaweed could eliminate much more methane than 20%, while at the same time eliminate also any expenses for gas relief pills.
At a time when methane gas production is surging, it doesn't help that in Canada, 88 per cent of agricultural methane emissions come from cattle,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cow-seaweed-gas-study-lethbridge-1.4711214
-
Les, would you rather eat salty, sandy seaweed or a nice, thick juicy New York Strip?
-
The thick and juicy new York Strip is something to die for, but I trained myself to resist the urge and switched to Boston lettuce with beefsteak tomatoes.
-
The thick and juicy new York Strip is something to die for, but I trained myself to resist the urge and switched to Boston lettuce with beefsteak tomatoes.
You can eat the veggies with a nice steak. Why deprive yourself? :)
-
Very true! Small piece of meat, eaten only occasionally won't kill us. Same as occasional romantic affair.
-
It may just be weather but..................massive amounts of rainfall in the mid-Atlantic US (we have had over 10 inches of rain here in my area in the past 4 days with more to come today and tomorrow), record high temperatures in the UK, Japan and some other places, wildfires in Greece, etc. Don't know whether it is global warming or cooling only that it's just not normal.
-
And how do you know it's not "normal," Alan?
-
Very true! Small piece of meat, eaten only occasionally won't kill us. Same as occasional romantic affair.
But hey, it will kill the poor cow.
-
What kind of romantic affair are you thinking of, Rob?
-
It may just be weather but..................massive amounts of rainfall in the mid-Atlantic US (we have had over 10 inches of rain here in my area in the past 4 days with more to come today and tomorrow), record high temperatures in the UK, Japan and some other places, wildfires in Greece, etc. Don't know whether it is global warming or cooling only that it's just not normal.
Hi Alan,
It is weather, but there are patterns emerging. There will be more weather extremes (especially in precipitation).
In my country we're currently experiencing another weather extreme, only ours is in drought. It is caused by a persistent high-pressure system over the Scandinavian region, but there is not a trend yet, so Weather it is, not Climate Change.
It has not rained for over a month and temperatures have been high, and nature is reacting by drying up, with trees shedding leaves, rivers are approaching record low levels (making transport over rivers like the Rhine difficult), and the lack of river water increases the risks of soil salinization of coastal regions where crops are grown. Cattle are already eating winter supplies of grass, since there is not enough grass in the meadows to go round, and farmers are forbidden to use the surface water for their sprinklers to water the fields. Swimming in open water is dangerous due to the bloom of poisonous algae. This week we're having our first national-heatwave (at least 5 days over 25 Celsius, of which 3 over 30 degrees Celsius) of the year.
The single benefit of the hot weather is that it's going to be an excellent wine year, the wine grapes can be harvested several weeks earlier than usual.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alan,
It is weather, but there are patterns emerging. There will be more weather extremes (especially in precipitation).
In my country we're currently experiencing another weather extreme, only ours is in drought. It is caused by a persistent high-pressure system over the Scandinavian region, but there is not a trend yet, so Weather it is, not Climate Change.
It has not rained for over a month, and nature is reacting by drying up, with trees shedding leaves, rivers are approaching record low levels (making transport over rivers like the Rhine difficult), and the lack of river water increases the risks of soil salinization of coastal regions where crops are grown. Cattle are already eating winter supplies of grass, since there is not enough grass in the meadows to go round, and farmers are forbidden to use the surface water for their sprinklers to water the fields. Swimming in open water is dangerous due to the bloom of poisonous algae. This week we're having our first national-heatwave (at least 5 days over 25 Celsius, of which 3 over 30 degrees Celsius) of the year.
The single benefit of the hot weather is that it's going to be an excellent wine year, the wine grapes can be harvested several weeks earlier than usual.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, That's the first time I ever heard you say global warming has some benefits. Now I know your weak point. Cheers. Proost :)
-
Bart, That's the first time I ever heard you say global warming has some benefits. Now I know your weak point. Cheers. Proost :)
Benefits if you live in a cold place. Not much fun in the Kalahari where 5 days in a row of 25 C is considered a mid winter cold snap.
-
Bart, That's the first time I ever heard you say global warming has some benefits. Now I know your weak point. Cheers. Proost :)
And to your health as well, but we're going to need it to drown our sorrows over the losses of food crops.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And to your health as well, but we're going to need it to drown our sorrows over the losses of food crops.
Cheers,
Bart
I was reading that the warming has allowed two crops in one season, earlier planting and reaping, etc. There's more food production in general with more rain, CO2 and warmth. Let's celebrate that. Proost :)
-
Lot of new photo opportunities for photography - especially if you are into shooting intricate parched soil patterns and dramatic forest fires.
-
I was reading that the warming has allowed two crops in one season, earlier planting and reaping, etc. There's more food production in general with more rain, CO2 and warmth. Let's celebrate that. Proost :)
Without water, not much foodproduction...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Lots of rain here in New Jersey. I haven't had to water my plants in over a week.😎
-
Speaking of weather, here's an interesting forecast I came across a few days ago in Malaysia. It's processed on an uncalibrated laptop, so not sure how the image will appear to other viewers.
-
The image looks fine, except that guy in the middle holding some large camera instead of a bottle of wine.
-
Lots of rain here in New Jersey Macedonia. I haven't had to water my plants in over a week.😎
Fixed that mistake for you.
-
Jeremy, what are you doing in (Northern?) Macedonia?
-
Jeremy, what are you doing in (Northern?) Macedonia?
Looking for trolls.
-
Looking for trolls.
Very funny.
Actually, you might be onto something. I read about year ago that the ground zero of fake news is in a little town in Macedonia (former Yugoslav republic), where some kids realized that is a golden mine for advertising money.
-
Very funny.
Actually, you might be onto something. I read about year ago that the ground zero of fake news is in a little town in Macedonia (former Yugoslav republic), where some kids realized that is a golden mine for advertising money.
Yes, it was a compelling story and they were all working to help elect Trump. I think it was piecemeal work and they were paid by the number of hits on the articles they wrote. From the interviews they said it was all great fun and they couldn't believe that people were reading their stories.
-
Yes, it was a compelling story and they were all working to help elect Trump. I think it was piecemeal work and they were paid by the number of hits on the articles they wrote. From the interviews they said it was all great fun and they couldn't believe that people were reading their stories.
Macedonia Collusion. Where's Mueller when you really need him?
-
... they were all working to help elect Trump...
Now, that is a conjecture worthy of fake news.
From the horse's mouth:
"Teenagers in our city don't care how Americans vote," he laughs. "They are only satisfied that they make money and can buy expensive clothes and drinks!"
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281
-
Very funny.
Actually, you might be onto something. I read about year ago that the ground zero of fake news is in a little town in Macedonia (former Yugoslav republic), where some kids realized that is a golden mine for advertising money.
I wasn't joking. Is "Alan Klein" an elderly photographer in New York? Or a teenager in his bedroom in Macedonia? Can you tell the difference from his posts?
https://www.ft.com/content/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a
-
I wasn't joking. Is "Alan Klein" an elderly photographer in New York? Or a teenager in his bedroom in Macedonia? Can you tell the difference from his posts?
https://www.ft.com/content/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a (https://www.ft.com/content/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a)
I've been outed. Dasvidaniya.
-
The image looks fine, except that guy in the middle holding some large camera instead of a bottle of wine.
C'mon now, Les. If I were holding a bottle of wine instead of a camera, I would have to change the wording to
"100% Chance of Wine" ;D
Neverthless, that might be an interesting Photoshop project when I return to Australia. ;)
-
New designed nuclear power to save the day?
"MATTHEW BUNN, A nuclear expert at Harvard, said that if nuclear power is going to play a role in fighting climate change, these advanced nuclear companies will have to scale up insanely fast. “To supply a tenth of the clean energy we need by 2050, we have to add 30 gigawatts to the grid every year,” he said.
That means the world would have to build 10 times as much nuclear power as it was before the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Is that even realistic?
“I think we ought to be trying — I’m not optimistic,” Bunn said, noting that the pace at which we’d need to build solar and wind to quit fossil fuels is just as daunting."
https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/
-
...the pace at which we’d need to build solar and wind to quit fossil fuels is just as daunting."[/i]
Our grandmas already used wind and solar energy for the laundry ;)
-
Our grandmas already used wind and solar energy for the laundry ;)
My mother did too. When I grew up in the Bronx, you know where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the democrat socialist is running, I use to take the wash up to the roof ("tar beach") and hang it out to dry on a clothesline with clothespins in the wind and sun. Boy would it get hot up there during the summer. I use to sneak a cigarette which addicted me for years. Ah, reminiscing.
-
Our grandmas already used wind and solar energy for the laundry ;)
Until she moved to house in 1961, my grandmother who was thrifty as the day is long had an antique washing machine in her upstairs duplex that had no spin cycle. You had to pass the clothes through hand cranked wringer to get the water out. She always hung the clothes on a line to dry and living in San Diego seldom had to worry about rainy days.
Here is a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSvCX7FSJqY) showing one in action. This one does have a motorized wringer.
-
Our grandmas already used wind and solar energy for the laundry ;)
As do I! And the dishwasher, and the vacuum...
And the utility company sends me a check EVERY month. ;D
-
I wasn't joking. Is "Alan Klein" an elderly photographer in New York? Or a teenager in his bedroom in Macedonia? Can you tell the difference from his posts?
Not posts like this one:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125934.msg1058411#msg1058411
-
As do I! And the dishwasher, and the vacuum...
And the utility company sends me a check EVERY month. ;D
Very cool stand-alone panel! How big is it? The residential solar panels around here (small Maryland city not far from Washington, D.C.) are all roof-mounted.
-
Very cool stand-alone panel! How big is it? The residential solar panels around here (small Maryland city not far from Washington, D.C.) are all roof-mounted.
It is a tracker that is rated at 2.4 KwH and I'd guess it's about 20 feet wide by 12 high. According to the monitoring dashboard, this is what we've 'saved' since install in 2012.
-
Good work, Andrew! Keep it up!
-
It is a tracker that is rated at 2.4 KwH and I'd guess it's about 20 feet wide by 12 high. According to the monitoring dashboard, this is what we've 'saved' since install in 2012.
You're fortunate to live in New Mexico where there's lots of sun. Here in NJ, it's been cloudy all week and the sun doesn't burn as strong even when its out. Of course, the climate's not as hot here so the A/C doesn't run as much. I investigated solar for my home. Home Depot had a deal with a nationwide installer, since dropped. It just didn't pay for all the hassle. My house is very insulated and tight. I run around 10,000 kwh over the year for 2100 square feet kept at 72% cooling (4 tons of cooling). I heat with natural gas. So my electric bill is around $1300 per year ($.13/kwh) $900 for natural gas. When we moved here 5 years ago, I thought our utility bills were going to be a lot higher. I was very pleasantly surprised. There are neighbors who've put in solar panels on their roofs. But it just doesn't make sense to me. Your panels are separate. Here you have to install them on your roof. That creates all kinds of problems with roof replacements, damages, difficulty of service/cleaning, etc., more risks and costs in general.
Can I ask, how much money has it saved you over the 6 years? What did you pay for it? What kind of operation and KWH use to you have?