Climate Change: Science and Issues

[pegelli]

Well, I would except we seem to be having Global Cooling.  So the best I could do was take a picture of the blizzard through the glass door.

Ooch, that looks quite "cool", also what we see on television here about the cold spell in NE US and Canada is quite extreme. But they also said the Western US is much warmer than normal (as is large parts of the rest of world), so I think "Global Cooling" might be an overstatement

[Alan Klein]

Well the West is warm because brush fires spread by the Santa Ana winds there have been burning the place down.

[pegelli]

Well the West is warm because brush fires spread by the Santa Ana winds there have been burning the place down.

Still not interested to buy that bridge I asked you about earlier? 

(post # 434)

[LesPalenik]

2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record

[Peter McLennan]

Among the many dangers predicted by the climate scientists are new, unpredictable and extreme weather events.

Funny. That's EXACTLY what we're seeing.

[Alan Klein]

Still not interested to buy that bridge I asked you about earlier? 

(post # 434)

There's nothing on #434 that means anything to respond too.  I already own all the bridges I need.

[Alan Klein]

Among the many dangers predicted by the climate scientists are new, unpredictable and extreme weather events.

Funny. That's EXACTLY what we're seeing.

There have always been "new, unpredictable, and extreme" weather events occurring.    That's the nature of weather and climate change that have occurred for 4 1/2 billion years.  Of course, it's handy to blame CO2 if you want to infludence public opinion of people who don;t know better. 

[pegelli]

There's nothing on #434 that means anything to respond too.  I already own all the bridges I need.

That's dissapointing, I thought you would get the joke 

[Alan Klein]

2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record

That's an interesting map.  It seems that the Arctic was heating up a lot more than the rest of the world while the Antarctic was cooling down more than the rest of the world.  Why is that?  Also, notice the big blue cooling spot in the Sahara Desert in North Africa.   That's also interesting because there were predictions by Global Warmists that deserts would get hotter, not cooler. 

[Alan Klein]

That's dissapointing, I thought you would get the joke 

No, I totally missed it. 

[pegelli]

No, I totally missed it.

I have a bridge to sell you

[LesPalenik]

Speaking about bridges,
some bridges in New York have been closed due to the recent snow storm. Also many cars were seen stuck coming off of the upper level of the George Washington Bridge,

[RSL]

Gotta be global warming, Les. Just ask Algore.

[Alan Klein]

I have a bridge to sell you

I already bought that bridge. Would you like to make me an offer?

[Tim Lookingbill]

2017 - the Second Hottest Year on Record (but this January must be the coldest in Ontario)

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/its-official-2017-was-the-second-hottest-year-on-record

Referencing my previous post on the PBS piece on the "Day The Dinosaurs Died" that provided time scale perspective on when that event occurred compared to how long we humans have been around (which is a blink of the eye comparatively), I can no longer feel any record of weather condition measured by feeble humans is useful information.

When the big rock that hit and wiped out the dinosaurs, it was the equivalent of 14 billion Hiroshima atom bombs according to scientific research and calculations. How is it the Earth is still here after that? With that in mind I don't believe anyone can record accurately what the weather was like millions of years ago if they couldn't tell us what the temperature was after the big rock hit and wiped out the dinosaurs. There is no proof or evidence on how long it took for the weather to recover and what, when, where and why it did.

Considering all this I get the impression this planet is quite resilient even against extreme weather changes. More resilient than we feeble humans can prove otherwise with our tiny little measuring instruments. 

Do you really think Global Climate Change has the same destructive power of 14 billion atom bombs? I don't.

[LesPalenik]

A destructive power of 14 billion Hiroshima bombs (15 kilotons in the Hiroshima bomb) is indeed an awesome might that would upset earth's climate for a long time.
For comparison, North Korea’s recent nuclear test was reportedly eight times more powerful (120 kilotons) than the Hiroshima bomb.

[pegelli]

Considering all this I get the impression this planet is quite resilient even against extreme weather changes. More resilient than we feeble humans can prove otherwise with our tiny little measuring instruments.

Our planet will exist for a long time after humans (as we know them now) become extinct, that's not the question and not at risk by the current rising CO2 levels.

The risk is whether we can continue living here as humans and expand our numbers as we're currently growing without making some changes how we use the resources the earth provides for us.

The discussion in this thread is the differences of opinion between a group of people who claim there is no problem and no change is needed and another group who think we need to be more careful and make some changes, especially on how much and which energy we use to keep society running (these are the two extremes, and there are obviously more varying opinions inbetween)

[Tim Lookingbill]

Our planet will exist for a long time after humans (as we know them now) become extinct, that's not the question and not at risk by the current rising CO2 levels.

The risk is whether we can continue living here as humans and expand our numbers as we're currently growing without making some changes how we use the resources the earth provides for us.

The discussion in this thread is the differences of opinion between a group of people who claim there is no problem and no change is needed and another group who think we need to be more careful and make some changes, especially on how much and which energy we use to keep society running (these are the two extremes, and there are obviously more varying opinions inbetween)

I don't think this discussion or any other discussion online among scientists or citizen scientists really has a grasp of the size and level of risk of the problem they think they can solve by just throttling down one molecule in the atmosphere. There are so many other problems we know we can solve because we have the resources and the will to do so like housing the homeless, taking care of our veterans, feeding the poor, cleaning up Super Fund sites, but yet we don't, can't or won't solve these problems. We need to focus on reducing one molecule, CO2.

We're all going to eventually die from a number of molecules of varying levels of destructiveness as we all decay in some way or another. Focusing on one molecule, CO2, as the cause of the demise of the entire human species presents a scale of magnitude that belongs in a sci-fi movie compared to the size (and reality) and scale of problems we've been able to solve in the past. I'ld rather fix the problems we know we can fix before we tackle making the climate behave the way we want it to.

If Global Climate Change is a real problem, it's just too big to fix compared to the size of other problems we've been able to solve.

[Peter McLennan]

If Global Climate Change is a real problem, it's just too big to fix compared to the size of other problems we've been able to solve.

So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.

[LesPalenik]

Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 14% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, more than the exhaust fumes from all transportation combined, according to conservative estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). World Bank experts Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang have estimated animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions using a full life-cycle analysis.

Going vegan is the single most impactful thing an individual can do to combat climate change.
Far more effective than more commonly known methods such as driving fuel-efficient cars, recycling, using energy-saving light bulbs or taking shorter showers.
Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves:
1,100 gallons of water
45 pounds of grain
30 sq ft of forested land
20 lbs CO2 equivalent
not counting lives of many chickens, rabbitts, and lambs

http://climatevegan.org/why-become-a-climate-vegan/