Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 98 ... 112   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 49749 times)

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1900 on: July 28, 2020, 09:02:36 am »

I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure.

Finally an honest answer.

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1901 on: July 28, 2020, 09:12:21 am »

All I'm trusting is the chart.  It seems to be have assembled from different sources.  My opinion about the bears was based on my observation of the chart.  The scientists who prepared the study said nothing about what I said.  It was my own conclusions based on the chart.  I discerned my conclusion from it and did not draw on any conclusions the scientists made in their study.

Alan, you do realize that everything to the left of the "historical observations" is based on a scientist's theory and not direct measurement of the temperature ?

There is no absolute "proof" that it is correct.

So what evidence do you use to trust that theory and group of scientists and not others ?
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1184
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1902 on: July 28, 2020, 10:42:58 am »

I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure.  But,  yes, I think they can adapt if the temperatures continue to escalate. Keep in mind that the temperature has gone up about 1 degree in a hundred or two hundred years, I believe, not 20 years.  That's many generations.

In the last 20 years it has escalated to very troubling rates. How do you think polar bears can adapt?
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1903 on: July 28, 2020, 10:55:16 am »

Alan, you do realize that everything to the left of the "historical observations" is based on a scientist's theory and not direct measurement of the temperature?  There is no absolute "proof" that it is correct.

I mentioned to Alan that the thermometer was not invented until 1714, but it didn't seem to phase him. He still believes the temperatures in the chart going back millions of years are true and accurate. At the same time, he said I had to actually count the polar bears to know how many there are. Go figure.

One of the problems with physically counting polar bears is that they live great distances apart, which means it takes time, so that when you have finished counting them, you don't know if the ones you first counted are still alive, or whether idiots like Don Jr. have gone up there, rented snowmobiles, hunted them down, and shot them for rugs in their living rooms. It's also cold. At least for the time being.

If the polar bears survive global warming, it will take all the fun out of shooting them because you won't get to ride around on snowmobiles. It might even be the real reason polar bears survive global warming. I am going to try to find a chart about that on the internet. If I do, it will prove I'm right.

Did I mention those videos that prove dinosaurs are fake? No question about it. It is a sad day when you find out that the Flintstones weren't real.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 01:51:41 pm by faberryman »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3765
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1904 on: July 28, 2020, 11:51:08 am »

I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure.  But,  yes, I think they can adapt if the temperatures continue to escalate. Keep in mind that the temperature has gone up about 1 degree in a hundred or two hundred years, I believe, not 20 years.  That's many generations.

Tell that to the citizens of Verkhoyansk, where recent temperatures were 38C.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1905 on: July 28, 2020, 02:07:18 pm »

You fellers seem to be playing a "gotcha" game with me regarding my belief system regarding scientists and scientific studies.  So let me put that to rest.

First, I never said I don't believe in them.  For the most part, I believe that the results are mainly honest, well researched within the limits of their studies, upfront, and unbiased.  However, I don't take everything I read at face value.  I'm not a fool.  Studies are distorted by media who do have an agenda.  Often scientists have agendas too.  I've followed the climate issue a lot.  I feel much of it has been hyped because important data has not been included, the results spun, or the media has just plain lied about it.  It seems the scales have been tipped to present it a certain way. 

Regarding the graph and temperature, let's not get into that fact that temperatures can be read other ways beside a thermometer. We'll all know that,  Trying to make it seem I only believe in thermometers and a fool just shows your ignorance of what I know.  Readers understand you're attacking me personally.  You're not presenting any counter arguments.  But that's OK.  I'll continue to present arguments based on reason while you continue with personal attacks and lose the argument because of your discourteousness and apparent inability to debate thoughtfully.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1906 on: August 01, 2020, 10:39:32 am »

I've been questioning whether there are changes occuring by causes we haven't identified yet?  So it seems here is now another one for cooling that seems to have been identified.  How will all of these beside CO2 affect the future climate?  How wrong are the current algorithms?


Texas cave sediment upends meteorite explanation for global cooling
"This research underscores that extreme climate variability since the last ice age is attributed to unique Earth-bound drivers rather than extraterrestrial mechanisms. Such insights are important guidance for building better models of past and future climate change."

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1907 on: August 01, 2020, 11:54:21 am »

I've been questioning whether there are changes occuring by causes we haven't identified yet?  So it seems here is now another one for cooling that seems to have been identified.  How will all of these beside CO2 affect the future climate?  How wrong are the current algorithms?


Texas cave sediment upends meteorite explanation for global cooling
"This research underscores that extreme climate variability since the last ice age is attributed to unique Earth-bound drivers rather than extraterrestrial mechanisms. Such insights are important guidance for building better models of past and future climate change."


I haven't heard the theory that a meteor caused the earth to cool 13,000 years ago. I thought the meteor theory was that it cooled the earth 65,000,000 years ago killing off the dinosaurs. Is a meteor the go to explanation for stuff scientists can't otherwise explain?

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1908 on: August 01, 2020, 01:46:21 pm »

the cooling period 13,000 years ago was not explained with any accuracy. A number of theories were proposed including meteorite impact ( dust, aerosols, etc) and volcanic action ( single massive, multiple over time, etc) and others. What this field work accomplished is pushing the theories more to the multiple volcanic action events over a relatively short period as a more likely major contributor along with ocean heat content changes. A modern example is from when Pinatubo blew a couple decades ago and the climate cooled nearly a degree (best i recall) for a year or so. All of the aerosols in the upper atmosphere made for some spectacular sunsets at 35,000 ft. if you were flying during that period.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3765
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1909 on: August 02, 2020, 06:44:45 pm »

I've followed the climate issue a lot.  I feel much of it has been hyped because important data has not been included, the results spun, or the media has just plain lied about it.  It seems the scales have been tipped to present it a certain way. 

Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way".  You've never provided an answer.

There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously? 

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1910 on: August 02, 2020, 11:53:48 pm »

Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way".  You've never provided an answer.

There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously? 


I have discussed it.  I guess you missed it.  Check my previous posts.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1911 on: August 03, 2020, 09:40:50 am »

Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way".  You've never provided an answer.

There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously?

I'll provide an answer, but it's rather long.

There are both good and bad aspects to many activities.

There is no doubt that we are polluting the land, oceans and atmosphere as a result of our industrial activities which provide the prosperous lifestyle we enjoy.

There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels without adequate emission controls results in smog and haze consisting of high levels of particulate carbon, and toxic chemicals such as Sulphur Dioxide, Mercury, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic, Lead, and other toxic heavy metals.

There's no doubt that such toxic emissions have health consequences for those who are most exposed to such pollution, such as people living in cities who are also exposed to the additional pollution from petrol and diesel vehicles.

There are obviously major environmental problems that should be addressed. The question is, what is likely to be the most effective way of addressing such problems?

The history of mankind suggests that one cannot expect whole populations to do the right thing simply because it's sensible and rational. Many people are driven by greed for wealth and power, and others for basic necessities in order to survive. Corruption in politics and business is entrenched, world-wide, although it's worse in some countries than others. The Volkswagen scandal, using "defeat devices" to reduce emissions during testing, is a case in point.

Imagine if Nuclear Power became the norm in all countries, including undeveloped countries. Imagine the consequences of safety measures being compromised in order to reduce costs.

About 50 years ago when China began developing its economy, it wasn't interested in building the more expensive, 'state-of-the-art', coal-fired power stations with good emission controls for the 'real' pollutants. It built the cheapest power stations, to produce the cheapest energy, so it could produce the cheapest products to flood the world market and expand its economy.
As a result, the haze, smog and pollution in its cities was horrendous, and it is still unacceptable today despite improvements in technology. In India, it's even worse.

However, Carbon Dioxide, which is by far the major gas emitted from coal-burning and other fossil fuels, is the most expensive and difficult emission to control or sequester. However, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and current increases, as a result of the industrial revolution, have been enormously beneficial for plant growth and food production, world-wide.

This benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 levels is of course denied by 'AGW Alarmists'. They concentrate on the very uncertain negative consequences of increased warming due to the very uncertain effects of tiny increases in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, pretending that the uncertainties do not exist, or are insignificant.

Their plan is to create the maximum alarm about the dangers of CO2 emissions in order to encourage the transition to renewables such as solar and wind and electric vehicles, which do not emit the real and harmful polluting gases, even in countries with high levels of corruption and/or incompetent management.

That approach might seem justified, and was supported by the late Professor Stephen Schneider. I would also support that approach if the exaggerations were confined to the 'real' threats to human health.

For example, I recall watching a video, many years ago, of Stephen Schneider answering questions from an audience of journalists and skeptics, about the exaggeration of the effects of CO2 emissions in the scientific reporting.
His answer made sense. His analogy was, if you want to discourage people from taking up smoking cigarettes, and/or encourage them to give up smoking, it might not be sufficiently effective to provide the precise scientific data that indicates there is, say, a 20% increase in the risk of getting lung cancer, according to the statistical analysis of those in hospitals with lung cancer.

Many people might think, I'll take the risk if it's only 20%. Exaggerating the risk to, say, 75%, will be more effective, and that benefit to the population at large could perhaps justify the scientific dishonesty.

Unfortunately, this analogy breaks down when applied to CO2 emissions because the scare about CO2 is not confined to lung problems due to the other, 'real' pollutants.
The scare about CO2 emissions is mainly focused on an increase in devastating extreme weather events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and so on, which are all natural events that have occurred frequently in the past, and sometimes destroyed entire civilizations.

Reducing our CO2 emissions in the expectation that such extreme weather events will decrease in the future, could be disastrous. We already have the knowledge and technology to protect ourselves from such extreme weather events, but we continue to build inadequate houses in known flood plains and areas that experience a severe hurricane or cyclone every 20 years or so.

In order to maintain the scare about CO2, the media so often describes such events as 'unprecedented', but anyone who takes the trouble to investigate the historical record should find that such extreme weather events are very rarely unprecedented. They will usually find a record of a greater flood or hurricane or drought in their area even before CO2 levels began rising.

Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3379
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1912 on: August 03, 2020, 10:00:38 am »

...
Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?
I don't see any reason to address both issues at the same time.

In the Netherlands we try to reduce CO2 ( we are behind schedule) and at the same time we build our dikes higher to be certain rising sealevels will not hurt us.
It is becoming obvious however that some changes are really difficult to stop or address: for instance.

The extreme windforce of hurricanes; very difficult to built strong enough.
The defrosting of the soil in the Siberian region and the enormous bush fires in that region;. Adding to the release of CO2 through the fire and liberated methane gase from the defrozen soil.
etc.
These processes might speed up the problems we are already facing. So trying to put out less CO2 ourselves seems a sensible approach.
Our gas atmosphere is a very delicate system with relatively small amounts of material ( atoms) that can be influenced rather easy.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 10:16:30 am by kers »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1913 on: August 03, 2020, 10:49:31 am »

I'll add that the huge costs to limit CO2 reduces financial resources that could be spent on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, curing the sick, medical research to cure cancer and other diseases. 

There's never a solution to a problem, only a tradeoff.  Unfortunately, no one talks about tradeoffs.  Maybe with the economies of the world in dire straits due to the virus, we're going to find out just how limited those resources are.  When people are starving and government is issuing credits for unemployment, there won't be any money left for climate control.  Of course government, for political reasons, will foolishly continue to spend and allocate limited funding to allow grandchildren to live by the beaches 60 years from now while people are starving today. 

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3765
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1914 on: August 03, 2020, 12:36:03 pm »

I'll provide an answer, but it's rather long.
...
Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?

Sorry, but that was a non-answer.  I didn't ask why you were "deeply concerned about the issue". My question was "who's tipping the scales, and why"?  You avoided answering either component.

Please don't respond with the tired trope that "It's the scientists looking for more career-advancing funding for climate research". That response has zero credibility. 

The 97% of scientists who agree that CO2 is forcing global heating are demonstrably more interested in science than notoriety or money. If they were fame and money-driven, they'd be in politics, and not in the notoriously underfunded business of science.

So, I'll ask again.  "What's in it for science to promote AGW"?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1915 on: August 03, 2020, 12:42:49 pm »

Sorry, but that was a non-answer.  I didn't ask why you were "deeply concerned about the issue". My question was "who's tipping the scales, and why"?  You avoided answering either component.

Please don't respond with the tired trope that "It's the scientists looking for more career-advancing funding for climate research". That response has zero credibility. 

The 97% of scientists who agree that CO2 is forcing global heating are demonstrably more interested in science than notoriety or money. If they were fame and money-driven, they'd be in politics, and not in the notoriously underfunded business of science.

So, I'll ask again.  "What's in it for science to promote AGW"?

For the same reason [virologists =edit]scientists promote shutting down the economy because of Covid 19.  They want to stop the spread of the disease. They're concerned with the science and don't consider the economics.  Finance isn't their field.  The fact that spending to reduce CO2 takes funding away from other important needs, doesn't enter their thinking.  That's why we need broad based experts including economists to be included when figuring out policy.  There are tradeoffs.  It's like spending all your money on the best camera and have no money left for printing the photos. 

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1916 on: August 03, 2020, 01:07:36 pm »

For the same reason [virologists =edit]scientists promote shutting down the economy because of Covid 19.  They want to stop the spread of the disease. They're concerned with the science and don't consider the economics.  Finance isn't their field.  The fact that spending to reduce CO2 takes funding away from other important needs, doesn't enter their thinking.  That's why we need broad based experts including economists to be included when figuring out policy.  There are tradeoffs.  It's like spending all your money on the best camera and have no money left for printing the photos.

I thought you said that all of the scientists are lying about anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and that the temperature rise was due to natural forces and beneficial to man, so we didn't need to do anything, in which case, you don't even need the economists since you won't be spending any money. So the question that all you AGW deniers won't answer is why the scientists and the media lying about all this. What is in it for them?

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3765
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1917 on: August 03, 2020, 01:27:26 pm »

So the question that all you AGW deniers won't answer is why the scientists and the media lying about all this. What is in it for them?

An even more interesting question is "Why won't the AGW deniers answer this question?"
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9971
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1918 on: August 03, 2020, 01:59:59 pm »

First, I'm not a denier.  I just have my doubts.  Also, the facts are distorted so you only hear one side of the story.  They focus on the negative aspects without mentioning the positive aspect such as more farmland, expanding habitable land for all species, greater growth of food due to increased CO2, longer growing seasons, etc.  Also, my concern is tradeoffs.  No one mentions how other importants things we need to pay for are reduced or eliminated like cancer research, homing the homeless, etc. 

Many scientists and media get caught up in the bandwagon effect and copy what others are saying.  Many scientists need grants for their research projects.  If they promote no climate change research, they won't get funding.  Publish or perish is their byword.  Media goes where the money is.  Disaster movies sell better.  So all the nature programs talk about how man is horrible and wants to destroy nature.  It's just hype to sell products.  Companies like Tesla, windmills for power, solar companies, etc promote their non-carbon products and get government to support their industries with rebates.  It reminds me of when the government poverty programs came out in the 1960's.  A reporter asked one of the CEO's of the companies involved why there was so much interest.  He responded gleefully, "Well, there a lot of money to be made in poverty."

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2390
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1919 on: August 03, 2020, 02:28:42 pm »

First, I'm not a denier.  I just have my doubts.  Also, the facts are distorted so you only hear one side of the story.  They focus on the negative aspects without mentioning the positive aspect such as more farmland, expanding habitable land for all species, greater growth of food due to increased CO2, longer growing seasons, etc.  Also, my concern is tradeoffs.  No one mentions how other importants things we need to pay for are reduced or eliminated like cancer research, homing the homeless, etc. 

Many scientists and media get caught up in the bandwagon effect and copy what others are saying.  Many scientists need grants for their research projects.  If they promote no climate change research, they won't get funding.  Publish or perish is their byword.  Media goes where the money is.  Disaster movies sell better.  So all the nature programs talk about how man is horrible and wants to destroy nature.  It's just hype to sell products.  Companies like Tesla, windmills for power, solar companies, etc promote their non-carbon products and get government to support their industries with rebates.  It reminds me of when the government poverty programs came out in the 1960's.  A reporter asked one of the CEO's of the companies involved why there was so much interest.  He responded gleefully, "Well, there a lot of money to be made in poverty."

It doesn't sound like you have your doubts. It sounds like you are describing a conspiracy, and everyone is in on it.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 03:23:38 pm by faberryman »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 98 ... 112   Go Up