It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:06 am 
I've recently read due to EPA emissions regulations, lack of upkeep on nuclear power plants and instability of natural gas prices that the price of electricity is going up at least a few points per year until 2020...and the total might be over 30% higher by then.

I do agree with the statement that man made emissions are raising the earths temp. But my opinion is it's slow and minuscule.

The reason for this thread beyond the new coal emissions regulations was I just came across another article that stated among members of the American Meteorological Society only 30% classify climate change as a "large concern". Then in the news today it's beef should be taxed because it leaves a "five times larger carbon footprint then other protein sources." Throw on the idea that I see so many journalists as of late...and a good number of scientists of note claiming this is "settled science" and that the media shouldn't give voice to skeptics...and even worse scientific studies that attack this theory should be rejected without consideration...something smells bad...because we are talking about 1.4 degrees over 150 years and no precise, reliable record of the temperature prior to that.

I'm really not looking for a blizzard of weather event bullshit. I need to see how the events are linked to some larger pattern. I don't care who the source of the panty bunching, hissy fit is either. I want specific answers to specific questions. Remember "An Inconvenient Truth"? Well, as of 6 months ago the Antarctic Ice cap is suppose to be gone, the number and severity of hurricanes and tornadoes drastically on the rise, South Pacific Islands swallowed up, a bunch of receding glaciers, etc.. all haven't happened, and that's just off the top of my head. And I'm tired of every time someone wises off when it's cold about," where's the global warming?" The response is an outraged "climate change isn't directly tied to hot, cold, or any single event". Yet, all I read about in context of climate change as of late speaks to unrelated singular events...be it West Coast drought or Polar ice calving.

So what I do know-

The temperature has only risen 1,4 degrees since 1880.

During the climate change temperature "pause" of the last 15 years Carbon emissions have climbed 30%...How is this explained if carbon emissions is such a force in climate change? Why isn't it still global warming if it's still only carbon emissions in play?

Much of the past data is based off tree ring analysis...it turns out this analysis isn't reliable for the 150 years of recorded temperature it can be measured against. Beyond that, even climate change radicals admit there are tree ring temperature problems do to rate of precipitation...that made these numbers imprecise to begin with. There are serious problems with the reliability of ice core samples as well...the other half of the analysis of historical temperature record...one being something as simplistic as shifting of the ice. I just don't see any sort of precision here. Sure I believe these techniques can give us approximate temperatures for periods of time long ago...but nothing precise and don't forget it's 1.4 degrees of change we are talking about.

How reliable are the early years of recorded temperatures? Are we talking about scientists eyeballing mercury? How much data from how many sources in what areas of the globe do they have data from in say, 1890? How precise can those measures be? Leave alone the theoretical tree rings and core samples for a second...it's 1.4 degrees...presumably we are talking about.

All this bullshit over 1.4 degrees over 150 years, maybe? That hockey stick graph is steep as fuck and eye catching for the 1.4 degrees it represents.

Even if it is all nearly exactly right and only behind schedule for some reason..why in the fuck should I pay more when Russia, China, Pakistan, India, etc really don't give a fuck and aren't going to slow there economies with this emissions bullshit anyway?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 8199
The question is what sort of impact that "slight" raise in temp is going to have. It may seem minuscule, but is it?

Americans love to be skeptical of science.

Ziv, you have noting to worry about b/c 70% of Americans trust the bibel more than science (I realize you are not one of these).

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:34 pm
Posts: 20658
Even if you doubt the global warming science, you should support efforts to get away from fossil fuels because look at what we're having to do just to get enough oil and gas to meet our current energy demand(shale, fracking, tar sands, etc- all with their disruptive impacts on the environment, not to mention requiring huge amounts of water as an input- water being something else that is getting in shorter supply as the population grows).

And that's CURRENT energy demand...to grow an economy indefinitely, increasing energy efficiency only gets you so far. Eventually you need more energy inputs.

It's not just global warming. There are a series of growing, interconnected threats and crises man is facing, and, due to when humans evolved, our brains, which are EXTREMELY short-term and immediate-focused, may not be equipped to deal with these crises.

Mankind has no long-term, holistic plan for its own survival.

And may be unable to develop one.

_________________
Bill Walsh: “Your ability to make good judgments is much easier on Thursday night than during the heat of the game."

R S: "All praise MJG. Fuck the NUT!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:45 pm
Posts: 11416
Was under the impression they could detect weather patterns from hundreds of thousands of years ago by looking at ice sheets. When they core a Glacier they can see in their labs what the atmosphere was like wouldn't that help them understand what the weather was like from those times?

So lets tax beef because of the cattle [methane] pollution? So making extra money on beef farmers who in turn pass those costs on to the consumer is going to resolve the problem? Fuck this world and it's greed for anything monetary. That is a fucking joke to me. Money is Not God and/or is Not the Solution to all problems.

I've been seeing some articles floating around regarding solar panels in the road ways. Or highways made from solar receptive materials that we can incorporate to generate power. Of course that won't be considered cause there's trillions$$ in oil right under our own continent waiting to be drilled.

Money is at the root here and as long as it is this world will become more dangerous to exist on. JMO

End Rant.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:14 am
Posts: 2259
Location: Houston, TX
Basically, all those messianic predictions of the impact of man-made global warming have gone out the window. But, facts never stop zealots. Their computer models and projections that they came up to prove global warming arent matching up with reality. Then they blithely cherry pick stats to support their models, but that isnt really working out either. Of course, if you can deny access to your data so your work cant be disproved then you can keep the government $$$ coming in.

The fact is the biggest operator on our temperature is 83 million miles away. And it is now taking another minor pause (maunder minimum) where there will be an extended period of reduced solar activity.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/cern-scientist-says-another-maunder.html

Of course a few years ago, those scientists who actually stated that the Sun was the issue, not as much man, where shouted down, because "the debate is over".

But everything is fine, we will always have the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), that august body whose purpose isnt to explore or research temperature issues, but to prove man is responsible, foment hysteria over the environment and suppress peer review.

_________________
R S wrote:
I'm sure she still wakes up in cold sweats and night terrors of Peyton's wrinkly ball sack pitter-pattering on her forehead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:12 pm
Posts: 1629
StillMadAtSlobber wrote:
Basically, all those messianic predictions of the impact of man-made global warming have gone out the window. But, facts never stop zealots. Their computer models and projections that they came up to prove global warming arent matching up with reality. Then they blithely cherry pick stats to support their models, but that isnt really working out either. Of course, if you can deny access to your data so your work cant be disproved then you can keep the government $$$ coming in.

The fact is the biggest operator on our temperature is 83 million miles away. And it is now taking another minor pause (maunder minimum) where there will be an extended period of reduced solar activity.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/cern-scientist-says-another-maunder.html

Of course a few years ago, those scientists who actually stated that the Sun was the issue, not as much man, where shouted down, because "the debate is over".

But everything is fine, we will always have the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), that august body whose purpose isnt to explore or research temperature issues, but to prove man is responsible, foment hysteria over the environment and suppress peer review.

Thanks for posting this, Slobber. I had not seen/heard this before. I wonder why...

Have you forwarded this to Al Gore? 8-)

_________________
Get well soon, Matt Murray


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:50 am
Posts: 2774
Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:06 pm 
Still Lit wrote:
The question is what sort of impact that "slight" raise in temp is going to have. It may seem minuscule, but is it?


Well here is the thing...I keep reading things like "with a mere 2 more degrees of temp increase..." making no mention that if even if all of this increase is 100% anthropomorphic it has taken 150 years to grow 1.4 degrees. And it seems highly unlikely it's all carbon emissions as they have grown 30% past there all time high with no increase in temp.

Still Lit wrote:
Americans love to be skeptical of science.


I really wasn't to concerned with it...until this idea that the science shouldn't be criticized and critics shouldn't be funded or published...really the idea that some fucking journalists and politicians can declare the state of current science beyond reproach. Right off the bat that sounds like someone protecting a vested interest. So having always had some questions due to the hockey stick, the pause, and the Mann e-mails I get curious...then those articles and I start digging.

Jeemie wrote:
Even if you doubt the global warming science, you should support efforts to get away from fossil fuels because look at what we're having to do just to get enough oil and gas to meet our current energy demand(shale, fracking, tar sands, etc- all with their disruptive impacts on the environment, not to mention requiring huge amounts of water as an input- water being something else that is getting in shorter supply as the population grows).

And that's CURRENT energy demand...to grow an economy indefinitely, increasing energy efficiency only gets you so far. Eventually you need more energy inputs.

It's not just global warming. There are a series of growing, interconnected threats and crises man is facing, and, due to when humans evolved, our brains, which are EXTREMELY short-term and immediate-focused, may not be equipped to deal with these crises.

Mankind has no long-term, holistic plan for its own survival.

And may be unable to develop one.


I think without a doubt mankind burns every fossil fuel available to us. There isn't just Russia, China, and the third world to consider...we continue to seek out fossil fuel sources and technology while imposing emissions standards that hurt the poorest Americans the most. Can there be any hypocrisy bigger then this alarmism paired with becoming the worlds current largest supplier of fossil fuels?

I think the answer will eventually be nuclear power, technological advances, and brutal population control. I don't think you can get away from the idea the greater the human population the more shit gets burned. I'm not one that is going to fret over the distant future...we will sort shit out with war and extermination of the weak at some point if need be. If there isn't some sort of natural ELE before that time comes. Not that I'm advocating for war and extermination...it's just I find that much more likely then say cold fusion...and even with endless energy the planet can only support so many people. And no one can stop people from fucking...and the dumb ones will continue to breed disproportionately.

I don't think we will ever except growth isn't the answer to human problems.

Steelafan77 wrote:
Was under the impression they could detect weather patterns from hundreds of thousands of years ago by looking at ice sheets. When they core a Glacier they can see in their labs what the atmosphere was like wouldn't that help them understand what the weather was like from those times?


This is what I've got-

In the case of temperature no direct measurement is possible. The temperature values are estimated from different isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. The methodology is based on the assumption that different isotopes evaporate at different rates depending on the temperature. It is generally considered that the best estimate of temperature from ice cores is based on the use of both Oxygen-18 and Deuterium. Another complication is that ice is not stationary, which means that the ice collected at lower layers may not be the ice that was originally underneath the upper layers. Despite all of these limitations, it is generally accepted that ice cores give a good representation of temperature over very long periods. They are able to answer such questions as what drives the cycle of ice ages and warm periods and what is the role of CO2 in long-term climate change.

So again, we are talking about 1.4 degrees...maybe. And I can't see how either tree rings or ice core data have the specificity to determine the past temperature to the point that this 1.4 degree of growth is unusual.

Appreciate the indulgence...the shit we think about when we can't sleep....

Edit- Thanks for the info Perch...incredible how difficult it is to run a search on criticism of climate change....seems no matter how I phrase it..it comes out with how to deal with climate change critics...I gave up and went after Manns methodology as best I could.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 9144
Well, the actual SCIENCE I've read on climate change, with a background in stats and research, tells me they haven't shown man having an impact with remotely the required scientific rigor. That said, climate scientists have seen enough anecdotal evidence to believe man is having a real impact and that can't be dismissed....although the pitfalls of beliefs/conclusions based on anecdotal evidence are essentially the basis for more rigorous scientific research. To change the story every 10 year or so (global cooling, global warming, global climate change, etc), along with rather poor predictive power of their models IS a ginormous red flag...yet the people who understand that are labeled "anti-science", which is oxymoronic if not downright fraudulent.

Anyway, I think man is a hell of a lot more capable of adjusting to warming than it is to cooling. I don't support expensive and oppressive "fixes" for a problem I feel is grossly overblown. We will and should spend the money when we need to adapt, and not as a dubious precaution that might be completely unnecessary.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tree Huggers in my Pocket...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 9144
As far as energy costs, I haven't kept up-to-speed but that's surprising. Just a year or two ago I was reading how natural gas had become so cheap that many wells were unprofitable and being capped to avoid a disastrous price collapse.

The natural gas boom has been not only an economic boom, but I've read it's bringing manufacturing back because of lower energy costs. Plenty of coal and heating oil plants out there for which natural gas is much cheaper and cleaner, so I'm not seeing the trend mentioned in the OP.

That said, fracking is also under attack and that would change everything.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group