whats going on in the arctic (Page 2)

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by NXS

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy It seems every decade we go through the same song and dance. Industry argues it's done nothing wrong. "The Earth is strong! It is SOOO massive, we couldn't possibly destroy it." Tell that to the lake near where I grew up that was filled with so many PCBs, you couldn't eat a fish from it let alone swim in it. Good ol' steel mill nearby apparently didn't like any of those liberal-lovin EPA nanny-state rules! Okay. leaded gasoline. Has anyone here looked back at the fight put up by big oil and gas companies when "fringe science" started to shed light on the damaging effects of leaded gasoline? They fought it with everything they had. Eventually, "libs" were listened to, and that hated nanny state government decreased their polluting of our water, land, and air. How about miles per gallon? Did it take an act of God to get motor companies to improve efficiency? Nope. No God there...just nanny state EPA laws at work again. Did it ruin their industry? Nope. It's just common sense that you don't continue to pump as many greenhouse gases as you can into the atmosphere. The list goes on and on...CFCs and the ozone layer comes to mind. Forget bipartisan support though. There could be a 10 foot rise in sea level, and the deniers would continue to assert the change was "natural." (despite the fact changes at this rapid a pace don't happen without cataclysmic cause) Is it just a coincidence that most global climate change deniers are to the Right on the ol' political spectrum? Is it a coincidence the same breakdown is seen with people who believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old? The same breakdown with those who do not understand nor accept human evolution as the fact it is? Science denial is a serious problem.

Ah yes, the industry. I remember back in the Carter days when all of the "scientists", media, and the administration, told us that at our current rate of consumption, we would run out of oil by the mid 1990's. The industry said they were wrong and of were course poo-pooed by the environmentalists and the left. Guess what? Its 2016, we didn't cut consumption and I filled my car up this morning. I question climate "science" that continues to change models when outcomes don't fit those models and conspire and rig data for a desired outcome (East Anglia University, Mann's hockey stick data). I am skeptical of "science" that says the answer is to raise taxes (revenue) and distribute it to poor nations. I am skeptical of "scientists" who demonize those who don't agree with them. I am skeptical of those telling me to reduce my "carbon footprint" while flying all over the world and taking my tax dollars to give to their buddies for "green industry" scams (solyndra). Yes, I am a skeptic, and that is what my science education has taught me to be.

You mean to tell me that scientists in the 1970s were not privy to the information available in the 21st century? As for the very small minority of folks who fudged data (and when I say small, I'm talking even smaller than the % of climatologists who deny anthropogenic influence) they are but that, anomalies. Guess what, there have been (in the history of the world) rogue archaeologists who have made bogus claims. Guess what? They are rooted out. That's what science does. Studies are subjected to intense peer review. If you feel comfortable justifying your skepticism just focusing on the small minority of bad scientists, while all the while ignoring the overwhelming majority of legitimate scientists, go right ahead. It's your right as an Amurrican! The fact is, anthropogenic global warming is real. Actual temperature readings bear this out...but then again, how can we trust those scientists and their "technology." Pfft, what's technology ever done for us anyway? If folks care to debate the extent of the effects of anthropogenic global warming, that's cool. But that's the thing, there are ranges regularly reported, some light, some intensely heavy...but to deny man's impact on the environment, I know for a fact if the overwhelming majority of experts in the field can't convince you, I sure as heck can't.

AGW is real, but it's an extremely small component to the overall temperature increases.  The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles without any Anthropogenic forcing, I hope you're not too stubborn to recognize that.  For example, the earth warmed .5 degree C from 1900 to 1950, and it warmed .5 degree from 1950 to 2000.  The deniers like to have it both ways and claim that the latter half was all AGW, but the early half was "natural".  /eyeroll.

Bravo. x2

Weather and climate science has been a hobby of mine for over a decade.  I'm certainly not a professional, but I genuinely do read all of the science reports as well as the skeptical viewpoints.  AGW is real, but it is overstated because scientists do not understand the earths climate as much as they thought they did when the original predictions occurred.  You gave several examples of adjustments because the science wasn't as it was thought and it was adjusted.  This is a great thing and how science is supposed to work. 
I have no problem studying the effects of CO2 because it is absolutely valid and there's no question CO2 levels are increasing.  There have been many papers suggesting it's a net increase (discounting any potential warming) and there are others that tie it into warming and see it as a bad thing.  However, based on decreased storm frequency/intensity, increased planetary plant growth, etc I'm leaning towards the increase as a net positive.

As I mentioned before, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does have an effect on the climate however the effect has proven to be far less than originally (and even currently) predicted.  The politicians and many scientists still use the disproven models to scare people into doing things to save the planet or else your children will all die a horrible death.  This alarmism is ridiculous, uncalled for, and not supported in any way by science.  It's dogma.

The science is nowhere near settled and to talk as though it is couldn't be more anti-science.  Here's an article about researched published in 2014 finding yet again that the earth is far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.  (linking the article because the actual study d'load requires $)
http://www.thegwpf.org/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/

Here's another fun one.  It's an article from a skeptic site, but why do these government "scientists" feel the need to make the past cooler than it is?  They use the term "better models" when justifying modifying it down but it sure looks very non-scientific to me.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

I don't/didn't propose any solution.   I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument - "I will caution your "FACTS" though because our air, water, and land is cleaner today than it was 50 years ago and it continues to get better" when clearly that is not the case.  Of course now you can argue that you were only talking about the United States, which ignores the global nature of the problem and is as shortsighted as somebody pointing out a cold city on the map to debunk global warming.

And just for the record, here are a couple more "isolated places" that are also "cleaner today than it was 50 years ago and it continues to get better."

(overseas-pollution.jpg)

(us-pollution.jpg)

^ x3 - Very well said!

I guess I can do the same thing using your scientific method:

You're arguing point in time pictures which are emotional to represent science and then claiming you have the scientifically superiority.  I don't know when and what the circumstances were for those pictures, but several look to just be foggy days.  Often the environmentalists post pictures of big burly smoke stacks that are nothing more than steam on a cold day.

That being said, there's no question there are cities and countries globally that need to get with the program.  Remember how bad LA used to be in the 70's and 80's and through better emissions and cleaner fuel products the air is substantially better.  Now obviously the air was better 100 years ago because we didn't have all the dino juice engines running around so you have a point there, but to say we haven't been improving and getting better is flat out wrong.
Here's a link from the EPA describing the improvements to air quality since 1970.
http://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health

Whatever!

I refuse to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. 

Foggy pictures indeed.  I expected a silly denial.  I did not expect absurdity.

It's ONLY about the debate.  If you thought you were gonna change anyone's mind-facts or not,  well, that's usually not how we play. 

You get used to it.  Or you don't.  (however, I enjoyed your comments)

Tony's pictures were all airbrushed........art science.

Yeah, that London pic looks like fog.

And that New York pic of the beach closed due to fecal matter.......those are tootsie rolls.

Yeah, I acknowledge that on closer inspection, that London picture may indeed be fog.

But here's the thing, while several people pointed out that that picture may be fog, not ONE person acknowledged the other pictures that may show serious environmental issues.

So here's a visual from which we can all paint our own picture - no fog, no photoshop, just the picture you create.  Walk out to your garage and make sure the garage door is securely closed.  Then start your car.  While you are walking back in to the house, toss your dog's favorite toy out into the garage.  As your dog dashes past to retrieve his toy, close the door behind you, leaving your dog in the closed garage with the running car.

Of course none of us will actually do that because we know it wouldn't work out so well for the dog.  Yet hundreds of millions, if not billions, of motor vehicles continue to pump those same gases that would be so harmful to your dog into the atmosphere on a daily basis, while at the same time, people continue to argue that mankind has had absolutely no impact on the environment.

We have become a society of people, so entrenched in defending our own position, however insightful or flawed that position may be, that we completely lose sight of common ground and finding a resolution.  The debate has become the focus and societal problems have become the game.

Meanwhile, your dog is still lying dead in the garage.

Just sayin'.

ok, your post made me lol for real.

First off, with the dog.  you go first and let me know how it works out for you.

I'm not aware of anyone in this thread that said mankind has no impact on the environment.  I certainly don't feel that way.

I also agree that you're so entrenched in defending your own position that you're arguing the wrong thing.  We were discussing weather patterns in the arctic and global warming above, but you felt the need to argue about environmental pollution which is a completely different (but important) thing.

Glad I could brighten your morning for you.

I think mankind has an enormous effect on the Earth......the Earth will win.

eh its probably overflow from a combined storm sewer system so very much our ault.

Sure......and the alternative is what?  We have to have sewer systems, and they will occasionally fail.  The river near my house is unusable right now because the December flood overflowed the two sewage treatment plants along that river.....we HAVE to have sewage treatment plants, and they have to be close to a water source.....they will sometimes be flooded or have other failures.

As the Earth's population continues to grow and grow the amount of waste will grow with it.  The amount of pollution will also increase.  The ONLY way to truly make the Earth cleaner is to have less humans.  The Earth will take care of that in time.

There is NOTHING you (or anyone else) can do to stop the increase in the human population of Earth, and therefore the amount of waste and pollution human's produce.......not one thing.

The simple fact is that the Earth is not ever going to become cleaner as the human population grows.......it's going to get worse until people are gone or the population of human's is put in check.  That'll happen eventually......with zero help from us.

Well, I'm going to bring a few new issues to the table.  As a scientist myself, someone who focuses on water and water quality related issues.  If you'd also like I can send you a copy of my most recent publication of my own personal research.

The water we have today is NOT cleaner.  There may not be the macroscopic contamination of it, but trust me the water is still very contaminated.  We are dealing with what we like to call 'emerging contaminates' things such as artificial sweeteners, birth control, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical metabolites, triclosan (think instant sanitizer) just to name a few.  These things are showing up in our surface waters and well waters.  At alarmingly high concentrations (some into the ppb range).  These are not removed in conventional treatment systems.  For either water treatment or wastewater treatment.

http://search.proquest.com/openview/3a467aa1ef048386df13e6198a429a34/1?pq-origsite=gscholar

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202404c

Now we could move onto nutrient loading.  We are pouring nutrients, namely phosphorus into our water ways.  Fish kills, algae blooms, eutrophication, it's a snowball effect.  But anytime someone tries to enact a regulation they are 'anti-business'

Guess what - get your soil tested, by a lab, not a lawn care company.  I can almost guarantee you that you don't need to add any phosphorus to it. 

We are destroying our water supplies.  We may not be able to 'see it' like we could with things like the love canal but the result will be the same.  In my opinion this is a bigger threat then climate change.

XX

Absolutely agree!

stop the fracking fracking

Yeah, that seems needlessly harmful......the Earth is going to fight back pretty hard on that one I would imagine.

Excellent points.  I also agree that keeping our water clean is more important than climate change.  
I can only speak for myself, but I only use the "anti-business" argument when technologies are pushed that aren't proven or when government tries fixing a problem that might not be there in the first place.  In most cases I'd say those are rare exceptions.  I will say that I get a little miffed when I see municipalities wastefully spend on dumb stuff with money that was supposed to be spent on water/sewer for decades and then come after everyone for tax increases to pay for the "emergency" that was spawned as a result of incompetence.  That doesn't negate the need to do it, it's more about government not doing what it's supposed to in the first place.

My wife was just telling me over the weekend that the micro beads in soaps were causing problems in the water at some level.  It was one of those conversations where I was just nodding while she was talking so that's about all I got.

One of the interesting things is that we're actually running out of phosphorus.  The only source for it is mines and P deposits are pretty limited so there's real concerns for agriculture in a few decades when we run out of it.  It sounds like it might be possible to reclaim it from waste water and whatnot except that we haven't developed the technology yet.  We assume the technology is possible but we probably won't find out for sure until the easy P is gone.

I work in air quality and N enrichment issues so I share your concern about nutrient enrichment and eutrophication.  I'm guessing you're familiar with the Science papers on planetary boundaries where they discuss the dangers of crossing the lines on nutrient enrichment.  But the reason I worry about it less than climate change is that nutrient enrichment is reversible.  When N enrichment is reduced we generally see recovery in ecosystems within a few decades, though it varies from place to place and there is some debate about what recovery means.  But what we're doing to the climate now is a one way street.  Humans are responsible for 95%+ of the warming we are experiencing now.  There are no natural forcings that can explain anything close to the magnitude we're seeing.  And even if emissions dropped to zero today (which obviously we're not going to do) we've already baked another 1* or so of warming in.  The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of millennia, so whatever warming we add now is going to stay with us for a long, long time  (yes CO2 fertilization increases plant growth, but plants also need water and moderate temperatures to grow and the research now points to there being an overall loss of biomass).

  Like leftbrain said, the earth is going to be just fine, even if humans won't.  I think that water and air quality are bigger threats to us in the near term , but we haven't even reached the opening act of climate change yet.  We're still on the page in the book where they tell you who published it and when the copyright is and some weird numbers.  As I mentioned, not only is it non-reversible for all intents and purposes, but, as the US military says in their analysis of climate change, it's a threat multiplier.  It's going to exacerbate the water and air quality problems we already have and make the even more difficult to deal with.

BTW - interesting about the sanitizer in the water.  I've heard about pharmaceuticals and such, but I didn't know that stuff stays in as well.

I never quite understood it either.  Even from an economics standpoint it's cheaper to get traditional drilled oil out of the ground versus the fracking process.  I suspect the fracking growth is related to some government regulation making it impossible to dig new wells, but allowing fracking.  I don't know, just guessing.

Fortunately the low oil prices are kind of "fixing" the fracking problem for us.  It costs more to get it out of the ground than what they can sell it for.  That's a sure fire way to stop it.  hah