login
Global warming - once more into the breach.... (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2018-02-09 6:24 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master  4101   Denver |  Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach....Lots of studies have looked for a relationship between the sun and temperatures, but there just isn't any. We're actually at or near the minimum in the solar cycle of activity and yet the last few years have been the hottest since we've been measuring. It seems to me that most of the skeptics start with the position of "we don't like government regulation, and addressing climate change would require government intervention, so let's do everything we can to discredit and sow doubt, rather than admit there's a problem in the first place." I've come across this site called the Niskanen Center that you might be interested in which is a libertarian take on climate change and how to address it using libertarian policies. The guy who started it has a fascinating story - he was a full-on denier who was a higher up at Cato and appeared on Fox and other conservative sites until he realised the info he was using to rebut that global warming was happening and happening because of us was junk science, and he got worried about his reputation and looking like a fool on national tv. Interesting podcast with him here. |
| 2018-02-09 7:15 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Pro 9391  Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by drewb8 Lots of studies have looked for a relationship between the sun and temperatures, but there just isn't any. We're actually at or near the minimum in the solar cycle of activity and yet the last few years have been the hottest since we've been measuring. It seems to me that most of the skeptics start with the position of "we don't like government regulation, and addressing climate change would require government intervention, so let's do everything we can to discredit and sow doubt, rather than admit there's a problem in the first place." I've come across this site called the Niskanen Center that you might be interested in which is a libertarian take on climate change and how to address it using libertarian policies. The guy who started it has a fascinating story - he was a full-on denier who was a higher up at Cato and appeared on Fox and other conservative sites until he realised the info he was using to rebut that global warming was happening and happening because of us was junk science, and he got worried about his reputation and looking like a fool on national tv. Interesting podcast with him here. I don't think it's fair to say there's no relationship with the sun and temperatures because if that were true it could go out and nothing would change. Obviously we'd all die a frozen death if it goes out. |
| 2018-02-09 8:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Tony. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. This is all in the recorded record. Not using ice cores or other things you don't like. Thermometers and shite man. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Edited by dmiller5 2018-02-09 9:11 PM |
| 2018-02-09 9:34 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by dmiller5 Tony. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. This is all in the recorded record. Not using ice cores or other things you don't like. Thermometers and man. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
You're falling for the alarmist trap Dave. The "warmest on record" is simply a method to scare people. If you look at the actual temperature anomalies they're extremely small in the fractions of a degree C. We get 100 times more variation on a days weather. Retired atmospheric physicist and MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen talks about the "warmest years" this way: To paraphrase, we're at the high side of the recent warming over the past 125 or so years so of course there's going to be warmest temperatures now. This graph is often used by the alarmists as well, but the interesting fact often overlooked is that we were cooling from 1880 through 1910 when CO2 was rising. 1945 through 1975 CO2 was rising considerably faster and it had very little effect on the temperature. Then from 1998 through 2015 CO2 was rising even faster than both of the earlier periods I mentioned, yet temperatures still hit a plateau during that period. The UAH graph suggests that CO2 is at least not the sole driver and possibly not even the main driver over the past 130+ years. |
| 2018-02-10 3:22 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by tuwood You're falling for the alarmist trap Dave. The "warmest on record" is simply a method to scare people. If you look at the actual temperature anomalies they're extremely small in the fractions of a degree C. We get 100 times more variation on a days weather. Anyways, here's another graph for you to consider. Also, the sattelite data which goes back to 1979 is only accurate to 0.1°C so when you're talking even smaller fractions it's statistically insignificant. It seems like your misunderstanding a whole bunch of things based on that paragraph, because you're points don't mean anything - I'm happy to help explain if you're interested, but if you're just trying to write some contrary stuff that's cool too. Retired atmospheric physicist and MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen talks about the "warmest years" this way: So, so much no. Someone needs to write a script so that any time someone uses the whole Lindzen 1998 cherry-picked steaming pile of poo argument their computer bursts into hot blue flames like a Burger King flame grill. Not to mention that this very graph shows that temperatures have not plateaued or leveled off. We're on the high side of the past 125 years because we've added CO2 to the atmosphere which has caused it to warm..."The emphasis on “warmest years on record” appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased." To paraphrase, we're at the high side of the recent warming over the past 125 or so years so of course there's going to be warmest temperatures now. This graph is often used by the alarmists as well, but the interesting fact often overlooked is that we were cooling from 1880 through 1910 when CO2 was rising. 1945 through 1975 CO2 was rising considerably faster and it had very little effect on the temperature. Then from 1998 through 2015 CO2 was rising even faster than both of the earlier periods I mentioned, yet temperatures still hit a plateau during that period. Here's a graph showing CO2 and temperature.The UAH graph suggests that CO2 is at least not the sole driver and possibly not even the main driver over the past 130+ years.
It shoudl also be noted that there's a pretty good lag between increased energy inputs and when we see it in the climate because there is natural climate variability and because most of the energy ends up in the oceans and water takes a long time to heat up - the same way water doesn't start boiling the second you turn on the stove. There's lots of good info in the IPCC report on the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures and here's a more recent paper on from Nature. The bottom line is that we're warming the atmosphere. There is no evidence for any other forcings, and no explanation for why CO2, a gas we've known for centuries is a greenhouse gas, isn't having any effect if it is something else. The most alarming thing to me is that this is irreversible. As weird and crazy as the weather is now, it is NEVER going back to what we think of as 'normal', at least on a human time scale. All this crazy weather we seem to have more and more often - that's going to be 'normal' for my daughter. And it's just going to keep getting more and more crazy, so I can only imagine what it will be like when she's my age with kids of her own and looks back and says "wow, this weather is nuts compared to when I was a kid. We only had storms drop 20" of rain every year or two back then..." |
| 2018-02-10 8:37 AM in reply to: drewb8 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by tuwood You're falling for the alarmist trap Dave. The "warmest on record" is simply a method to scare people. If you look at the actual temperature anomalies they're extremely small in the fractions of a degree C. We get 100 times more variation on a days weather. Anyways, here's another graph for you to consider. Also, the sattelite data which goes back to 1979 is only accurate to 0.1°C so when you're talking even smaller fractions it's statistically insignificant. It seems like your misunderstanding a whole bunch of things based on that paragraph, because you're points don't mean anything - I'm happy to help explain if you're interested, but if you're just trying to write some contrary stuff that's cool too. Retired atmospheric physicist and MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen talks about the "warmest years" this way: So, so much no. Someone needs to write a script so that any time someone uses the whole Lindzen 1998 cherry-picked steaming pile of poo argument their computer bursts into hot blue flames like a Burger King flame grill. Not to mention that this very graph shows that temperatures have not plateaued or leveled off. We're on the high side of the past 125 years because we've added CO2 to the atmosphere which has caused it to warm..."The emphasis on “warmest years on record” appears to have been a response to the observation that the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 appeared to have ceased and temperatures have remained almost constant since 1998. Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record, since the temperature leveled off at that year and continued into the subsequent years—all of which are now as hot as the record year of 1998. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (i.e., the increase of temperature) has ceased." To paraphrase, we're at the high side of the recent warming over the past 125 or so years so of course there's going to be warmest temperatures now. This graph is often used by the alarmists as well, but the interesting fact often overlooked is that we were cooling from 1880 through 1910 when CO2 was rising. 1945 through 1975 CO2 was rising considerably faster and it had very little effect on the temperature. Then from 1998 through 2015 CO2 was rising even faster than both of the earlier periods I mentioned, yet temperatures still hit a plateau during that period. Here's a graph showing CO2 and temperature.The UAH graph suggests that CO2 is at least not the sole driver and possibly not even the main driver over the past 130+ years.
It shoudl also be noted that there's a pretty good lag between increased energy inputs and when we see it in the climate because there is natural climate variability and because most of the energy ends up in the oceans and water takes a long time to heat up - the same way water doesn't start boiling the second you turn on the stove. There's lots of good info in the IPCC report on the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures and here's a more recent paper on from Nature. The bottom line is that we're warming the atmosphere. There is no evidence for any other forcings, and no explanation for why CO2, a gas we've known for centuries is a greenhouse gas, isn't having any effect if it is something else. The most alarming thing to me is that this is irreversible. As weird and crazy as the weather is now, it is NEVER going back to what we think of as 'normal', at least on a human time scale. All this crazy weather we seem to have more and more often - that's going to be 'normal' for my daughter. And it's just going to keep getting more and more crazy, so I can only imagine what it will be like when she's my age with kids of her own and looks back and says "wow, this weather is nuts compared to when I was a kid. We only had storms drop 20" of rain every year or two back then..." Of course, correlation does not equeal causation. World population grew from 1.6 billion to 7 billion over the same period. So you now have 5.4 billion more little CO2 producing machines on the planet. One could superimpose that graph on top of this graph and conclude increased population is the culprit. How many CO2 producing people can the planet support? 7 billion? 11 billion? 22 billion? All have to be fed and housed and clothed.....using combustion engines. Most will drive cars, planes and train....all proving pollution. Bottom line is whatever is going to happen will happen whether we do anything or not. We’d sooner hold back the tide than change the planet’s climate. The efforts to curb emissions is a effort to make a select few rich. Reducing emissions means you have to account for world population growth and I don’t see that being addressed. I can reduce emissions by a coal fired power plant but if at the same time I build two more plants to keep with increasing demand I have accomplished nothing. |
| 2018-02-10 12:27 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Rogillio Of course, correlation does not equeal causation. World population grew from 1.6 billion to 7 billion over the same period. So you now have 5.4 billion more little CO2 producing machines on the planet. One could superimpose that graph on top of this graph and conclude increased population is the culprit. How many CO2 producing people can the planet support? 7 billion? 11 billion? 22 billion? All have to be fed and housed and clothed.....using combustion engines. Most will drive cars, planes and train....all proving pollution. Bottom line is whatever is going to happen will happen whether we do anything or not. We’d sooner hold back the tide than change the planet’s climate. The efforts to curb emissions is a effort to make a select few rich. Reducing emissions means you have to account for world population growth and I don’t see that being addressed. I can reduce emissions by a coal fired power plant but if at the same time I build two more plants to keep with increasing demand I have accomplished nothing. Well we're already changing the planet's climate, so holding back the tide accomplished I guess. If your concerned that curbing emissions will make a select few rich, come up with a way to do it that doesn't. Our system right now of subsidising fossil fuels and passing all the costs of their use off to society is the textbook example of privatizing profits and socializing costs - a few elites at the fossil fuel companies getting rich while we pay the costs of their disgusting pollution, so where's the outrage there? We are not helpless little children in all this. We're the ones who slimed up our atmosphere, but we're also the ones that can make it pristine and clean again. We could choose to make renewables a priority the way China has. They have been adding wind and especially solar at an amazing rate, and while a few years ago they were basically building a new coal plant a week, coal use there peaked in 2013 and has been declining since. They've added so much renewables that there's about 200GW of brand new coal plants that is just sitting there not being used. I'm not saying it'll be easy. You're right that it will take a lot of energy if we want everyone else to be able to have the same standard of living as we have. But it's totally possible to make it cheaper to use renewables for it than coal. We're stuck with the warming (and costs from it) that we have already - and a bit more because it takes temperature a little while to catch up, but it's definitely possible if we act now to hold off the worst of the effects that would happen if we continue on like we are. We just have to choose to do it. If you don't like the solutions that have been put forward, fine, great, come up with your own. But doing nothing isn't an option if we want our children to have the same standard of life that we've enjoyed. |
| 2018-02-10 5:34 PM in reply to: drewb8 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by drewb8 Originally posted by Rogillio Of course, correlation does not equeal causation. World population grew from 1.6 billion to 7 billion over the same period. So you now have 5.4 billion more little CO2 producing machines on the planet. One could superimpose that graph on top of this graph and conclude increased population is the culprit. How many CO2 producing people can the planet support? 7 billion? 11 billion? 22 billion? All have to be fed and housed and clothed.....using combustion engines. Most will drive cars, planes and train....all proving pollution. Bottom line is whatever is going to happen will happen whether we do anything or not. We’d sooner hold back the tide than change the planet’s climate. The efforts to curb emissions is a effort to make a select few rich. Reducing emissions means you have to account for world population growth and I don’t see that being addressed. I can reduce emissions by a coal fired power plant but if at the same time I build two more plants to keep with increasing demand I have accomplished nothing. Well we're already changing the planet's climate, so holding back the tide accomplished I guess. If your concerned that curbing emissions will make a select few rich, come up with a way to do it that doesn't. Our system right now of subsidising fossil fuels and passing all the costs of their use off to society is the textbook example of privatizing profits and socializing costs - a few elites at the fossil fuel companies getting rich while we pay the costs of their disgusting pollution, so where's the outrage there? We are not helpless little children in all this. We're the ones who slimed up our atmosphere, but we're also the ones that can make it pristine and clean again. We could choose to make renewables a priority the way China has. They have been adding wind and especially solar at an amazing rate, and while a few years ago they were basically building a new coal plant a week, coal use there peaked in 2013 and has been declining since. They've added so much renewables that there's about 200GW of brand new coal plants that is just sitting there not being used. I'm not saying it'll be easy. You're right that it will take a lot of energy if we want everyone else to be able to have the same standard of living as we have. But it's totally possible to make it cheaper to use renewables for it than coal. We're stuck with the warming (and costs from it) that we have already - and a bit more because it takes temperature a little while to catch up, but it's definitely possible if we act now to hold off the worst of the effects that would happen if we continue on like we are. We just have to choose to do it. If you don't like the solutions that have been put forward, fine, great, come up with your own. But doing nothing isn't an option if we want our children to have the same standard of life that we've enjoyed. You did not address my main point....7,000,000,000 people soon to be 11 billion. Each one produces CO2 just to breath. Each one has to eat 2 to 3k calories per day.....that means millions of tractors, trucks, train, growing food, packaging, shipping to market. Each of this tractors, harvesters, combines, truck, trains, planes and freighters produces CO2. Each one of those billion people needs cothes that take every to produce, manufacture and ship. Each one of the people needs shelter. The vast majority will need transportation to get to their jobs. Most will need electricity to build, heat/cool and maintain their home. I submit that there is no way to even keep up the increase in pollution for even very nominal population growth much less reduce our collective output. When trying to find root cause in engineering we try to ask 5 “whys”. Why is the climate changing? You say CO2 in the atmosphere. Why is there more CO2? Why? We are polluting more? Why? We have gone from 1 person on the planet to 7 billion people. Cars, planes, trains, power plants, houses etc are not the problem....the fact that we have billions of them is the problem. Until we deal with over population we will never reduce pollution at all. |
| 2018-02-10 7:25 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Rogillio You did not address my main point....7,000,000,000 people soon to be 11 billion. Each one produces CO2 just to breath. Each one has to eat 2 to 3k calories per day.....that means millions of tractors, trucks, train, growing food, packaging, shipping to market. Each of this tractors, harvesters, combines, truck, trains, planes and freighters produces CO2. Each one of those billion people needs cothes that take every to produce, manufacture and ship. Each one of the people needs shelter. The vast majority will need transportation to get to their jobs. Most will need electricity to build, heat/cool and maintain their home. I submit that there is no way to even keep up the increase in pollution for even very nominal population growth much less reduce our collective output. When trying to find root cause in engineering we try to ask 5 “whys”. Why is the climate changing? You say CO2 in the atmosphere. Why is there more CO2? Why? We are polluting more? Why? We have gone from 1 person on the planet to 7 billion people. Cars, planes, trains, power plants, houses etc are not the problem....the fact that we have billions of them is the problem. Until we deal with over population we will never reduce pollution at all. If only there were a way we could produce energy without burning carbon and spewing it into our atmosphere, or to use our energy more efficiently. If only... If you're really concerned about the 10 billion people that will be around in 2050, than just continuing what we're doing is about the worst possible thing we could do. We're guaranteeing more famines, more water scarcity, more mass migrations, and more tropical diseases. I'm not saying it's realistic for the world to be 100% carbon neutral any time in my (or probably my daughter's) lifetime, but it's possible if we act now to take our foot off of the gas and at least start pumping the brakes. There's already evidence that some countries have been able to decouple economic growth and emissions - for example, the UK, France, Sweden & a few other countries have had decreasing emissions for a few years now while economic growth has continued. It's not the population that's the problem, it;s the energy use, and that;s something we can do something about. |
| 2018-02-10 8:13 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by drewb8
If you're really concerned about the 10 billion people that will be around in 2050 Same study that predicts sea levels, temperature, etc. I suppose? So we now claim, as a species, we can predict 32 years into the future? Cool!!
Edited by Left Brain 2018-02-10 8:14 PM |
| 2018-02-10 8:36 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by drewb8
If you're really concerned about the 10 billion people that will be around in 2050 Same study that predicts sea levels, temperature, etc. I suppose? So we now claim, as a species, we can predict 32 years into the future? Cool!!
That is simple extrapolation based on current population growth rates. My point is there is a limit to the number of people a planet of our size can support. The planet will survive. Disease, famine, rising seas...the planet will survive. I have seen no ideas to limit population growth. We can go to nuclear in lieu of fossil fuel but population growth will still overtake us as far as CO2 production. The US is 4.4 % of the wolrld population....and we use 18% of the energy but that is changing as more Chinese get cars. Do the math....if you can get 25% of the population to reduce consumption by 10% but the other 75% stays constant but population increases by 2% you still have a net increase of.... The rest of the equationn is left to the reader as an exercise. |
| 2018-02-11 7:45 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Looks like the hardcore pro-GW Weatherchannel is giving some ground on the issue. https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-... Drewb8 nails it on water and famine. Underdeveloped countries have struggled with both for decades before GW became a science. This issue continues to grow while the US pumps billions into AIDS prevention for these countries. Send pumps, pipes and clean water systems to developing nations. Show them how to farm and distribute clean water. Maybe we could stop putting corn into our gasoline and send it overseas instead. Studies are showing corn in gas is having more negative effects on the environment than burning straight fossil fuel based gasoline. Our burning corn has affected corn prices as close to home as Mexico, putting strain on their poor who rely on it for something as basic as a tortilla. A snack food item for us, a food staple for them. And turn the effuviking lights off at night! We've all seen the night sky photo/maps comparing the US to North Korea. Somehow we're proud of that? Do we really need enough light in the Home Depot parking lot to perform brain surgery at 3 AM? How much energy is wasted lighting stuff 90% of the population doesn't see or use in the wee hours? |
| 2018-02-11 2:15 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Left Brain That is simple extrapolation based on current population growth rates. My point is there is a limit to the number of people a planet of our size can support. The planet will survive. Disease, famine, rising seas...the planet will survive. I have seen no ideas to limit population growth. We can go to nuclear in lieu of fossil fuel but population growth will still overtake us as far as CO2 production. The US is 4.4 % of the wolrld population....and we use 18% of the energy but that is changing as more Chinese get cars. Do the math....if you can get 25% of the population to reduce consumption by 10% but the other 75% stays constant but population increases by 2% you still have a net increase of.... The rest of the equationn is left to the reader as an exercise. Originally posted by drewb8
If you're really concerned about the 10 billion people that will be around in 2050 Same study that predicts sea levels, temperature, etc. I suppose? So we now claim, as a species, we can predict 32 years into the future? Cool!!
Oh, I get that it's simple extrapolation......but it's pretty useless in my mind. Like you said, there are no ideas to limit population growth, but there doesn't need to be. The Earth will handle that. |
| 2018-02-11 2:17 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by mdg2003 Looks like the hardcore pro-GW Weatherchannel is giving some ground on the issue. https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-... Drewb8 nails it on water and famine. Underdeveloped countries have struggled with both for decades before GW became a science. This issue continues to grow while the US pumps billions into AIDS prevention for these countries. Send pumps, pipes and clean water systems to developing nations. Show them how to farm and distribute clean water. Maybe we could stop putting corn into our gasoline and send it overseas instead. Studies are showing corn in gas is having more negative effects on the environment than burning straight fossil fuel based gasoline. Our burning corn has affected corn prices as close to home as Mexico, putting strain on their poor who rely on it for something as basic as a tortilla. A snack food item for us, a food staple for them. And turn the effuviking lights off at night! We've all seen the night sky photo/maps comparing the US to North Korea. Somehow we're proud of that? Do we really need enough light in the Home Depot parking lot to perform brain surgery at 3 AM? How much energy is wasted lighting stuff 90% of the population doesn't see or use in the wee hours? Home Depot does if they want to have any lawnmowers and gas grills left in the morning. Edited by Left Brain 2018-02-11 2:17 PM |
| 2018-02-11 3:24 PM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Expert 2373 Floriduh | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by mdg2003 Looks like the hardcore pro-GW Weatherchannel is giving some ground on the issue. https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-... Drewb8 nails it on water and famine. Underdeveloped countries have struggled with both for decades before GW became a science. This issue continues to grow while the US pumps billions into AIDS prevention for these countries. Send pumps, pipes and clean water systems to developing nations. Show them how to farm and distribute clean water. Maybe we could stop putting corn into our gasoline and send it overseas instead. Studies are showing corn in gas is having more negative effects on the environment than burning straight fossil fuel based gasoline. Our burning corn has affected corn prices as close to home as Mexico, putting strain on their poor who rely on it for something as basic as a tortilla. A snack food item for us, a food staple for them. And turn the effuviking lights off at night! We've all seen the night sky photo/maps comparing the US to North Korea. Somehow we're proud of that? Do we really need enough light in the Home Depot parking lot to perform brain surgery at 3 AM? How much energy is wasted lighting stuff 90% of the population doesn't see or use in the wee hours? (images-1.jpg) Attachments ---------------- images-1.jpg (13KB - 11 downloads) |
| 2018-02-12 8:22 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by mdg2003 Looks like the hardcore pro-GW Weatherchannel is giving some ground on the issue. https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-... Drewb8 nails it on water and famine. Underdeveloped countries have struggled with both for decades before GW became a science. This issue continues to grow while the US pumps billions into AIDS prevention for these countries. Send pumps, pipes and clean water systems to developing nations. Show them how to farm and distribute clean water. Maybe we could stop putting corn into our gasoline and send it overseas instead. Studies are showing corn in gas is having more negative effects on the environment than burning straight fossil fuel based gasoline. Our burning corn has affected corn prices as close to home as Mexico, putting strain on their poor who rely on it for something as basic as a tortilla. A snack food item for us, a food staple for them. And turn the effuviking lights off at night! We've all seen the night sky photo/maps comparing the US to North Korea. Somehow we're proud of that? Do we really need enough light in the Home Depot parking lot to perform brain surgery at 3 AM? How much energy is wasted lighting stuff 90% of the population doesn't see or use in the wee hours? Home Depot does if they want to have any lawnmowers and gas grills left in the morning. One light, not 60 would suffice. I'm become my father. "Turn off those gd**ned lights. You think electricity grows on trees?" |
| 2018-02-12 8:22 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... . Edited by mdg2003 2018-02-12 8:23 AM |
| 2018-02-12 8:38 AM in reply to: Oysterboy |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Oysterboy Originally posted by mdg2003 Looks like the hardcore pro-GW Weatherchannel is giving some ground on the issue. https://weather.com/science/space/news/2018-02-06-sun-grand-minimum-... Drewb8 nails it on water and famine. Underdeveloped countries have struggled with both for decades before GW became a science. This issue continues to grow while the US pumps billions into AIDS prevention for these countries. Send pumps, pipes and clean water systems to developing nations. Show them how to farm and distribute clean water. Maybe we could stop putting corn into our gasoline and send it overseas instead. Studies are showing corn in gas is having more negative effects on the environment than burning straight fossil fuel based gasoline. Our burning corn has affected corn prices as close to home as Mexico, putting strain on their poor who rely on it for something as basic as a tortilla. A snack food item for us, a food staple for them. And turn the effuviking lights off at night! We've all seen the night sky photo/maps comparing the US to North Korea. Somehow we're proud of that? Do we really need enough light in the Home Depot parking lot to perform brain surgery at 3 AM? How much energy is wasted lighting stuff 90% of the population doesn't see or use in the wee hours? Ironically, it appears burning bio fuels actually increases CO2 emissions. You also generate a lot of CO2 planting, cultivating, harvesting and processing the corn. Guess it all comes down to money. Where is the market for corn? Feeding starving children in sheethole....I mean third world countries or selling the corn to oil companies? No judging, just stating the obvious. I think the climate change folk could get the world behind them is they focused on limiting world population growth rather than charging people a tax if they pollute......which only hurts the poor! If a family has 2 children they are not contributing to world population growth. If, like in China, you limit families to one child you have negative population growth. China's policy was ill thought though as people aborted female babies or abandoned them. And now, 20 years later there are lots of young men who cannot find a wife do to the shortage of young ladies. There is no one solution to population growth but perhaps free birth control and condoms would help. Maybe provide a financial incentive to have fewer children? Here's a though....when you get married you get two child vouchers. You can have 2 children with no penalties. If you want more, you buy someone else's voucher. :-) Yeah, I know, impossible to manage/enforce. It would need to be voluntary. |
| 2018-02-12 8:56 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... can you imagine trying to get the evangelicals to only have 2 children? They hate abortion, they hate birth control....so tell them not to have sex? Yes this plan is genius... (i do happen to agree with you, just don't think we could possibly implement it because of the far right) |
| 2018-02-12 9:19 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by dmiller5 can you imagine trying to get the evangelicals to only have 2 children? They hate abortion, they hate birth control....so tell them not to have sex? Yes this plan is genius... (i do happen to agree with you, just don't think we could possibly implement it because of the far right) Q. What do you call a Catholic woman who uses the rhythm method of birth control? A. Mom I was the 4th child born to a Catholic woman who used this method! I was 'not planned'..... |
| 2018-03-02 5:33 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Saw this and thought of you guys: The real scientists have known the surface data was very poor quality for quite some time but it's good to see more people coming around. The paper is actually pretty good and talks about many of the challenges with homegonizing surface data. |
| 2018-03-02 6:07 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Originally posted by Rogillio I have 5 kids......if I made more money I'd of had 5 more.....best of life in my book. And Rog....don't feel bad, one of my twins was not planned...I go back and forth on which one. Originally posted by dmiller5 Q. What do you call a Catholic woman who uses the rhythm method of birth control?A. MomI was the 4th child born to a Catholic woman who used this method! I was 'not planned'..... can you imagine trying to get the evangelicals to only have 2 children? They hate abortion, they hate birth control....so tell them not to have sex? Yes this plan is genius... (i do happen to agree with you, just don't think we could possibly implement it because of the far right)  Edited by Left Brain 2018-03-02 6:37 PM |
| 2018-03-27 10:03 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/health/climate-change-hunter-gatherer... - Interesting read. I'm not good with history and hard stuff like that, but didnt the internal combustion engine come around after this happened? Only logical explanation was that these guys made lots of really, really, really big fires. Because nothing else changes climate but man. That science has already been settled and anyone who disagrees probably thinks the earth is flat. |
| 2018-03-27 10:05 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... Edited by mdg2003 2018-03-27 10:05 AM |
| 2018-03-29 7:10 AM in reply to: mdg2003 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Global warming - once more into the breach.... "In a sign the In a sign the White House’s hard-line stance against climate science may be shifting public debate, independent voters have grown more doubtful of scientists’ warnings about climate change over the past year, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.may be shifting public debate, independent voters have grown more doubtful of scientists’ warnings about climate change over the past year, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday." It always amuses me when the MSM thinks people are so easily swayed! First off they show obvious bias with "White House’s hard-line stance against climate science". Then they go on to say that the reason must be that independents are stupid and their beliefs are very easily manipulated. Interesting polling showing the partisan divide on this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/independents-shifting-climate-denial-acco... |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK