Climate Change

[Biopsyman]

Another renewable energy company SunEdison fills for bankruptcy today...I guess the oil industry still has clients

 

[gcbvol]

Whether or not climate change is the most adverse result of human toxic wastes is of little concern if, in the end, we have **** our nest with so great a load, the earth can no longer clean itself, and so we make the one and only home for mankind no longer livable.

I think Earth can clean itself, though not in a way we'll likely enjoy.

 

[hog88]

Except that "alternative" you speak of, that the earth is just warming naturally, has been addressed ad nauseam by the same scientists that people seem to believe haven't come to the same consensus.

No it hasn't. Remember 97% of scientist blame it on man yet when you ask what caused the earth to warm ending numerous ice ages throughout history they don't want to discuss that.

The alarmist don't want to discuss dealing with it, what are we going to do IF it is a natural phenomenon. Money isn't being spent on mitigation it's being spent on ad campaigns, lobbyists and sketchy research. If the MMGW crowd wants to be taken seriously they need to start addressing how we are going to live with a warming planet since they are doing nothing to stop it.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

No it hasn't. Remember 97% of scientist blame it on man yet when you ask what caused the earth to warm ending numerous ice ages throughout history they don't want to discuss that.

The alarmist don't want to discuss dealing with it, what are we going to do IF it is a natural phenomenon. Money isn't being spent on mitigation it's being spent on ad campaigns, lobbyists and sketchy research. If the MMGW crowd wants to be taken seriously they need to start addressing how we are going to live with a warming planet since they are doing nothing to stop it.

I don't care what fraction of atmospheric climate change is caused by mankind's waste stream because I believe there is a more serious environmental endgame hidden behind the foo-fa-raw over greenhouse gases. That is mankinds toxic waste stream in it's totality.

I believe are destroying with that toxic waste stream and environmental pressures many of the earthly macro and micro environments capable of supporting the myraid species of flora and fauna that now exist. As I said before. We are fouling our own nest with the excrement of modern conveniences.

 

[hog88]

I don't care what fraction of atmospheric climate change is caused by mankind's waste stream because I believe there is a more serious environmental endgame hidden behind the foo-fa-raw over greenhouse gases. That is mankinds toxic waste stream in it's totality.

I believe are destroying with that toxic waste stream and environmental pressures many of the earthly macro and micro environments capable of supporting the myraid species of flora and fauna that now exist. As I said before. We are fouling our own nest with the excrement of modern conveniences.

What waste streams specifically?

I'm not saying pollution doesn't exist but at least in the US and most other first world countries we are cleaner now than since the industrial revolution.

 

[Roustabout]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?

Did you read the article?
We can't tell past temps. We can deduce significant climate swings like Ice ages. How many of those significant climate swings was man responsible for? Zero. And that's not to say that man isn't impacting climate today. I'd say to some degree or another he is.

But what of it? Aside from a catastrophe that wipes out 2/3 of the human population, nothing will change. Western countries pay out the nose for carbon tax. Your average new car today has about $4k of emissions crap on it. Yet, most of the global pollution is coming from China and India where our emissions laws don't apply.

 

[AM64]

You don't think that there maybe things we can learn from species of plants and animals that only exist in those environments that could drastically help man kind? Who gives a **** about curing long list of diseases. You do realize that many diseases have been cured by plants rights? Not the play or animal itself but the learnings from studying it. Next to the oceans the Rain forests are the least understood areas on earth. But **** it. Let's build condos and pass on curing Parkinson's, or cancer....

That's what is so fraudulent about the climate of climate awareness. The talk is about oceans rising, unabated temperature increase because of "excess" CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. Things that can only be "cured" through massive spending and complete change in how we produce energy. What we should be doing - such as preserving forests and not creating population centers that strip all the natural resources and natural healing doesn't seem to register on any scales anywhere.

Growth in some areas continues unabated regardless of the warning signs. The air in parts of CA is permanently fouled regardless of the fact that they are adjacent to the ocean and deserts. Just simply more pollution than nature can handle. GA wants the border with TN changed so they can get to a loop of the Tennessee River - and drain that, too, to solve Atlanta's water problem. And for N GA because Atlanta already drained that. Some places have sink holes because they've sucked the water out of the ground and hydraulically destabilized the place.

So, yes, we need to preserve what we've got, but the climate change alarmists have hijacked the topic, and what can be controlled, isn't. So we'll continue to have cluster f...s instead of a distributed population that the earth can support.

 

[volfox72]

Aka, we have no idea what will happen if the earth warms.

That's the scary part. The earth is the one planet we have available to us for the foreseeable future. No one is sure what will happen if we continue on our path of carbon emissions and increased greenhouse effects. Even if there were a 25% or 10% chance of our climate future ending catastrophically, wouldn't it be wise to pay attention to that and try to avoid taking that risk as much as possible?

 

[n_huffhines]

My opinion doesn't fit under any of these poll options.

"Climate change is a concern but government involvement will likely do more harm than good."

 

[DancingOutlaw]

To me it's kind of pretentious to think that humans are powerful enough to radically change this planet. It has existed for billions of years without us and will exists for billions more with or without us. We poo poo about gas guzzlers and emissions, how much CO2, CO, etc. are ejected in a typical volcanic explosion? How much damage does a typical wildfire do? How much damage is caused by spring floods? We like to think we are pretty powerful beings, but we're pretty insignificant compared to the earth and natural forces.

 

[malinoisvol]

To me it's kind of pretentious to think that humans are powerful enough to radically change this planet. It has existed for billions of years without us and will exists for billions more with or without us. We poo poo about gas guzzlers and emissions, how much CO2, CO, etc. are ejected in a typical volcanic explosion? How much damage does a typical wildfire do? How much damage is caused by spring floods? We like to think we are pretty powerful beings, but we're pretty insignificant compared to the earth and natural forces.

100000000000000000x

 

[hog88]

To me it's kind of pretentious to think that humans are powerful enough to radically change this planet. It has existed for billions of years without us and will exists for billions more with or without us. We poo poo about gas guzzlers and emissions, how much CO2, CO, etc. are ejected in a typical volcanic explosion? How much damage does a typical wildfire do? How much damage is caused by spring floods? We like to think we are pretty powerful beings, but we're pretty insignificant compared to the earth and natural forces.

We do some stupid stuff, draining coastal wetlands, building in flood zones, building dikes, cutting down large sections of the rain forest ext. We (at least the US) do not pollute anywhere near what we used to.

 

[MercyPercy]

To me it's kind of pretentious to think that humans are powerful enough to radically change this planet. It has existed for billions of years without us and will exists for billions more with or without us. We poo poo about gas guzzlers and emissions, how much CO2, CO, etc. are ejected in a typical volcanic explosion? How much damage does a typical wildfire do? How much damage is caused by spring floods? We like to think we are pretty powerful beings, but we're pretty insignificant compared to the earth and natural forces.

Damn those pretentious scientists.

 

[allvol123]

Improving the space we live is not the same as improving the environment.

Paved roads and parking lots improve our space, but also decrease the amount of space water can seep back into the earth which increases flooding.

Ill remember that after the next flood I experience.

 

[FLVOL69]

I usually keep my political views to myself, but this one seems too important to not post. I'm no climate scientist, but I've read around 97% of climate scientist agree the world is warming and it is caused by humans. 2015 was the warmest year on record for the globe as a whole, 2016 is on pace to be even warmer. The greenhouse effect, and specifically carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels seems to be the primary cause. Sea-level rise, acidification of the ocean, shrinking of ice ranges in the poles, and record warmth across the globe are all evidence of this.

Some anecdotal evidence, Knoxville's average high in april is 71 degrees, and we've been in the mid 80s for a while now, and that warmth is projected to continue for the next week.*

What is everyone else's opinion? I don't want to be some crazy doomsday prophet and overreact to this, but it does to be one of the biggest challenges facing the world in the future.

*

 

[82_VOL_83]

I know.. dismiss anything that does not fit the agenda when proven wrong as small and insignificant.. Classic

I knew you could proofread!

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'd engage any argument you made, if they weren't below coloring book quality.

Name one argument you have ever engaged and actually answered.

 

[82_VOL_83]

So a giant trash island floating in the ocean isn't a problem at all?

Not until the Chinese claim it and try to build a base on it.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

We do some stupid stuff, draining coastal wetlands, building in flood zones, building dikes, cutting down large sections of the rain forest ext. We (at least the US) do not pollute anywhere near what we used to.

BS...for one recent example

Environmental group sounds alarm about toxins in the Tennessee River | WHNT.com

From the above report:

"The tests revealed cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury at levels - high enough that they could adversely effect aquatic life. But none of the levels exceeded the amounts where adverse effects would be regarded as eminent"

"eminent" hmmm .. adverse effects on aquatic life are demonstrable. We can't eat the fish.
http://m.decaturdaily.com/news/toxin-triggering-fish-advisory-still-entering-tennessee-river/article_aae23042-c545-11e4-894b-1bf456f087ab.html?mode=jqm

 

[AM64]

Here's a review on the topic published just last week-

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

The authors also did a reddit AMA a couple days ago.

"Anderegg et al (2010) identified climate experts as those who had authored at least 20 climate-related publications and chose their sample from those who had signed public statements regarding climate change."

In other words they surveyed the guys who wrote articles about climate change, and lo and behold they said they believed in climate change. Can you find anyone writing about climate change who isn't on the bandwagon?

A paper a few years ago by an MIT grad student included a plot showing CO2 and temperature vs time. It was obvious that they trended together; however it was not obvious which led and which lagged. Nor was it possible to infer causation - whether one caused the other or if both were effects of another driver such as solar energy.

I've spent years analyzing data - generally attempting to dig out vibration related to specific phenomena buried in flow noise and to correlate multiple channels of information. It's very common to find what looks like correlated responses in multiple channels and then find no correlation. It takes much more effort to know that two pieces of data are correlated.

Further, the data released for study are manipulated - "corrected". Most people doing normal statistical analysis of the same data that have been released will come up with similar results. It's not like all the researchers are gathering raw data independently; they are simply churning out similar stuff from the same pool of numbers.

 

[AM64]

I believe Bart just posted that information.

"When people claim the number is lower, they usually do so by cherry-picking the responses of groups of non-experts, such as petroleum geologists or weathercasters."

Not really. What they do say is that unless you are one of their experts, then your opinion - because it certainly couldn't be scientific analysis - doesn't matter. That anyone outside their clique, regardless of background and competency in numerical analysis, is not allowed to disagree. Not the right pedigree, you know.

 

[AM64]

just curious, what the global temperature is supposed to be? And also, if weather didn't start being recorded for certain regions until the 1850's then how can we honestly say what the global temperature was in 80 BC?

Inferences, models, and tea leaves from such things as tree rings and ice cores. If they don't look quite right, the "experts" simply adjust them to make them conform to "the model".

 

[hog88]

BS...for one recent example

Environmental group sounds alarm about toxins in the Tennessee River | WHNT.com

From the above report:

"The tests revealed cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury at levels - high enough that they could adversely effect aquatic life. But none of the levels exceeded the amounts where adverse effects would be regarded as eminent"

"eminent" hmmm .. adverse effects on aquatic life are demonstrable. We can't eat the fish.
Toxin triggering fish advisory still entering Tennessee River - News - Decatur Daily

Wow, that the best you got?

Did it ever occur to you or did you notice the absence of data? Just what are the metal levels? Saying the levels could possibly effect aquatic life is pretty ****inf vauge.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Wow, that the best you got?

Did it ever occur to you or did you notice the absence of data? Just what are the metal levels? Saying the levels could possibly effect aquatic life is pretty ****inf vauge.

I love how they throw TVA in there. Looking for a money pit.

 

[allvol123]

Happy Erf day.

http://cdn.marketplace.akc.org/media/45930/1454286244_1092_9722.jpg