Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where I live, during the peak of our summer we can normally expect a fair number of days near and above 40 degrees Celsius.
    Last summer, we didn't have one single mid-summer day 40 degrees or over. High 30's a-plenty but it never reached 40.
    Of course, weather patterns can't be really definitive over a short period. I think we should look over several decades at least.

    Nevertheless, I do find this whole topic very interesting and whatever impacts human activity may be having on our climate overall, surely those impacts can only increase with population growth, industrial growth, accelerated land clearance etc?
    To me, it seems to make good sense to take whatever reasonable measures are open to us, to manage human activity in a way that will minimize environmental impacts over the longer term.

    Can't speak for the distant future. (I hope that as a species we might eventually colonize other worlds? Call me a dreamer if you like.) However, right now, Earth is the only planet we've got. Wouldn't want to see us make too much of a mess of it, eh?

    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

    Comment



    • Climate Change Alarmism Is the World’s Leading Cause of Hot Gas
      ...
      Even as anti-gas tax riots raged in France this week, naturalist David Attenborough warned a crowd at a United Nations climate change summit in Poland that “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

      U.N. General Assembly President Maria Espinosa told the media that “mankind” is “in danger of disappearing” if climate change is allowed to progress at its current rate.

      Speakers, who flew in to swap doomsday stories, advocated radical changes to avoid this imminent environmental apocalypse. These days, “the point of no return” is almost always in view, yet always just out of reach.

      Sorry, but by now, this rhetoric is familiar.

      You can go back to 1970, when Harvard biologist George Wald, riding a wave of popular environmental panic during the decade, estimated, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

      Or you can go back to 1977, when Barack Obama’s future science “czar,” John Holdren, co-authored a book with Paul R. Ehrlich predicting that global warming could lead to the deaths of 1 billion starving people by 2020. (The authors theorized, “Population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”)
      ...
      The problem for alarmists is that warming is now here—allegedly the cause of an untold number of disasters, small and large—yet somehow humanity slogs onward, living longer, safer, richer lives. People internalize this reality, no matter what they tell pollsters.
      ...
      Although not so big as the massive spike in climate change hysterics since 2005, there also has been a spike in fossil fuel consumption among nations that are slowly embracing the most effective poverty-killing program ever invented by man.

      And capitalism, even its worst iterations, runs best on cheap energy. This reality has produced a giant reduction in poverty, the extreme variety being cut in half around the world, according to the World Bank. The less poverty there is, the more cars we will see, and the less the U.S. and Europe can do about it.

      Fortunately, Attenborough, Gore, and the 22,000 delegates attending the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can’t begin to contemplate the staggering number of advancements in productivity and science that await humans.

      Of course, simply because Malthusians have been completely wrong about human ingenuity and adaptability for more than 100 years doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong now.

      On the other hand, at no point in history has a massive top-down social engineering project ever worked as intended. It’s worth noting, for example, that the 10 worst famines of the 20th century were caused not by the excesses of capitalism or by environmental disasters, but by collectivists trying to control human nature.

      Trade-offs, ignored by doomsdayers since the beginning of history, are something people intuitively understand. That’s why the fearmongering hasn’t worked and probably never will.
      ...
      https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/...I4aVAifQ%3D%3D
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • The worst part, I think, for the Progressive, Leftist, environmental movement is that as ownership of a vehicle widens, the availability of cheap electricity increases, and access to communications becomes an everyday thing, the less people are going to be willing to be controlled and pigeon holed into rigid class and social structures with a top-down governmental system of the sort Socialism and the Left in general want to apply.

        Owning a vehicle gives one mobility. This means you can move further to where jobs are. You can live further from a job if you choose. It increases all your options. You don't have to live, shop, and work locally. It also means you aren't forced into dense urban living. Cheap energy means you can do more "stuff" in general. Nighttime isn't darkness and productivity doesn't end when you have cheap power. Access to telecommunications, the internet, radio, and television means you have the ability to be better informed about everything. It greatly increases your options when it comes to employment. You can now find employment thousands of miles from your current location and then move there with relative ease if you wish.

        All of that runs directly counter to Leftist dogma. The Left pushes public transit and mass transit. They push dense urban living. They want renters not owners. They want you dependent on government and not particularly well informed about other opportunities you might have. That gives them, and their sort of government, control over you and your life.

        So, to counter that, they need a crisis that can force their dogma on society. Gorebal Warming is one form of that in action. In essence, the calls for fixing Gorebal Warming are:

        Elimination of the automobile in favor of mass transit and public transit.
        Expensive (and limited) energy via wind and solar.
        Densification of urban areas and a push to "downsize" one's home.
        Putting controls on communications to reduce access to information.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Climate Change Alarmism Is the World’s Leading Cause of Hot Gas
          ...
          Even as anti-gas tax riots raged in France this week, naturalist David Attenborough warned a crowd at a United Nations climate change summit in Poland that “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

          U.N. General Assembly President Maria Espinosa told the media that “mankind” is “in danger of disappearing” if climate change is allowed to progress at its current rate.

          Speakers, who flew in to swap doomsday stories, advocated radical changes to avoid this imminent environmental apocalypse. These days, “the point of no return” is almost always in view, yet always just out of reach.

          Sorry, but by now, this rhetoric is familiar.

          You can go back to 1970, when Harvard biologist George Wald, riding a wave of popular environmental panic during the decade, estimated, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

          Or you can go back to 1977, when Barack Obama’s future science “czar,” John Holdren, co-authored a book with Paul R. Ehrlich predicting that global warming could lead to the deaths of 1 billion starving people by 2020. (The authors theorized, “Population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”)
          ...
          The problem for alarmists is that warming is now here—allegedly the cause of an untold number of disasters, small and large—yet somehow humanity slogs onward, living longer, safer, richer lives. People internalize this reality, no matter what they tell pollsters.
          ...
          Although not so big as the massive spike in climate change hysterics since 2005, there also has been a spike in fossil fuel consumption among nations that are slowly embracing the most effective poverty-killing program ever invented by man.

          And capitalism, even its worst iterations, runs best on cheap energy. This reality has produced a giant reduction in poverty, the extreme variety being cut in half around the world, according to the World Bank. The less poverty there is, the more cars we will see, and the less the U.S. and Europe can do about it.

          Fortunately, Attenborough, Gore, and the 22,000 delegates attending the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can’t begin to contemplate the staggering number of advancements in productivity and science that await humans.

          Of course, simply because Malthusians have been completely wrong about human ingenuity and adaptability for more than 100 years doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong now.

          On the other hand, at no point in history has a massive top-down social engineering project ever worked as intended. It’s worth noting, for example, that the 10 worst famines of the 20th century were caused not by the excesses of capitalism or by environmental disasters, but by collectivists trying to control human nature.

          Trade-offs, ignored by doomsdayers since the beginning of history, are something people intuitively understand. That’s why the fearmongering hasn’t worked and probably never will.
          ...
          https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/...I4aVAifQ%3D%3D

          If this is true then how come the world keeps on getting warmer ?
          1 2015 0.90 1.62
          2 2014 0.74 1.33
          3 2010 0.70 1.26
          4 2013 0.66 1.19
          5 2005 0.65 1.17
          6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
          6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
          8 2012 0.62 1.12
          9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
          9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
          9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
          12 2002 0.60 1.08
          13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
          13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
          15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
          15 (tie) 2008
          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
          Last edited by bill shack; 12 Dec 18, 14:07. Reason: DID NOT INCLUDE MY SOURCES

          Comment


          • Because the climate changes naturally?

            Comment


            • This time it isn't...
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bill shack View Post


                If this is true then how come the world keeps on getting warmer ?
                1 2015 0.90 1.62
                2 2014 0.74 1.33
                3 2010 0.70 1.26
                4 2013 0.66 1.19
                5 2005 0.65 1.17
                6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
                6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
                8 2012 0.62 1.12
                9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
                9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
                9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
                12 2002 0.60 1.08
                13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
                13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
                15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
                15 (tie) 2008
                https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
                If you were paying attention, the main thesis of ACC/AGW is the increase of ATMOSPHERIC Carbon Dioxide(CO2) to a level of 400 ppm (parts per million (dry air=not counting water vapor content)) which is a ration of 1/2500. The unproven claim is that one part CO2 retains and transfers heat to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere.

                When this flim-flam con game got started a few decades ago, we here in the Pacific North West(PNW) of USA (like Western Washington State where I live) were supposed to start having Winters like they have in Southern California. I lived in So. Cal. back in early 1970s and so far we still have freezing cold and snow Winters here in the PNW, nothing at all like the more balmy Winter of So. CA.

                So apart from the math and chemistry of that 1/2500 ratio as anthropogenic cause of Climate Change/Global Warming not making common sense or being proven, we so-called "skeptics" remain of observation that this looks to be more a Natural flux and cycle, rather than human-caused. Weather and Seasonal averages have stayed in same range of variation during the 60+ years I've lived. If things did get warmer to the scale of what occurs in So.CA. I wouldn't consider that a bad development. Far more preferable than Global Cooling which could cover us in a mile of glacial ice like we had here just 12,000 years ago.

                That said, let's look at your post ...
                .......
                Providing the link to the chart is appreciated and helps provide some context and validation of what you've shown. However if you read the text of that chart you find the following;
                ....
                Much of the record warmth for the globe can be attributed to record warmth in the global oceans. The annually-averaged temperature for ocean surfaces around the world was 0.74°C (1.33°F) higher than the 20th century average, easily breaking the previous record of 2014 by 0.11°C (0.20°F). Ocean temperatures for the year started with the first three months each third warmest for their respective months, followed by record high monthly temperatures for the remainder of the year as one of the stongest El Niños in the historical record evolved.

                Prior to 2015, the highest monthly anomaly on record for the global oceans was 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average, occurring just last year in September 2014. This all-time monthly record was broken in August 2015 (+0.78°C / +1.40°F), then broken again in September (+0.83°C / +1.49°F), and then broken once more in October (0.86°C / 1.55°F)—making three all-time new monthly high global ocean temperature records set in a single calendar year. [Three all-time records (at the time) were also broken in 2014.] In 2015, the last four months of the year were more than 0.80°C higher than their respective average, the first instances in which this monthly-average threshold has been crossed.

                The warmth was due to the near-record strong El Niño that developed during the Northern Hemisphere spring in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean and to large regions of record warm and much warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in parts of every major ocean basin. Record warmth for the year was particularly notable in large parts of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, a large swath of the western North Atlantic, most of the Indian Ocean where a positive Indian Ocean dipole prevailed, and parts of the Arctic Ocean. Similar to 2014, some of the Southern Ocean waters off the tip of South America and part of the Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland were much cooler than average, with one localized area in the Atlantic region record cold.

                Separately, temperatures were record warm across land surfaces as well. The global land temperature for 2015 was 1.33°C (2.39°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous records of 2007 and 2010 by 0.25°C (0.45°F). This is the largest margin by which an annual global land surface temperature has been broken. Previously, 1981 had broken the record of 1980 by 0.22°C (0.40°F).

                Because land surfaces generally have low heat capacity relative to oceans, temperature anomalies can vary greatly between months. In 2015, the average monthly land temperature anomaly ranged from +0.94°C (+1.69°F) in June to +1.89°C (+3.40°F) in December, a difference of 0.95°C (1.71°F). The ocean has a much higher heat capacity than land and thus anomalies tend to vary less over monthly timescales. During the year, the global monthly ocean temperature anomaly ranged from +0.58°C (+1.04°F; February) to +0.86°C (+1.55°F; October), a difference of 0.28°C (0.51°F).
                ....
                https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Notice that this is a measure of ocean and land with major focus and increase from ocean temps. When you go back to the 1880s, science wasn't aware of plate tectonics nor the up-welling of heat from Earth's core that pours through the fissures where the plates meet under water. Since then we've learned that heat rising from the Earth's center/core is a major factor in ocean temperatures, as stated in excerpt text above.

                Another factor is that temperature reading devices where nowhere near as frequent and dispersed back in the 1880s as today, nor where the instruments as accurate or readings as frequently taken as contemporary are, bottom-line is comparisons are not equal given these differences in quantity and quality over the near past 140 years. It's possible the change isn't as great as assumed.

                Net result is nothing in your linked source proves that the rise is solely or even mostly the result of human activity, or because of a slight increase of atmospheric CO2 percentage.

                BTW, once again you miss the implication that if all the pro-ACC/AGW cult believers were to stop exhaling CO2 the "problem" they think exists would be solved.
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  This time it isn't...
                  According to you and mostly a bunch of Left leaning "scientists" and environmentalists...



                  Comment


                  • The argument that global warming is simply too convenient when you consider the political and cultural biases of the people working on it seems sound to me. It isn't a conspiracy as much as a convergence of interest that leads the work to be suspect. This theory is strengthened by the near obsession with which pro AGW people paint the "deniers" as stooges of the fossil fuel industry. The current political atmosphere has a palatable tendency to paint others with the motives of those doing the painting in equal but opposite proportions.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      According to you and mostly a bunch of Left leaning "scientists" and environmentalists...



                      NASA is left-leaning?

                      What if they are right and you and other deniers are wrong?
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                        NASA is left-leaning?

                        What if they are right and you and other deniers are wrong?
                        Are you willing to totally give up your freedom and lifestyle to the crying of WOLF by the environmentalist and Federal Agencies in a country where great strides have been made in reducing pollution and energy use while China and India continue to pollute the planet with reckless abandon?

                        Because, that is the agenda on the Left. Downsize everyone's lifestyle and freedom by seizing all private property and money, move them into tiny apartments or communes, force them to use public transportation or just walk to where they need to go, eventually reduce the world's population to a couple of hundred millions by only keeping those that are of any value to the Collective.
                        https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelo...mate-change-2/

                        The evidence that Humans have a very small impact on the Global Warming Panic.
                        https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...rming-alarmism.

                        If you really believe the Junk Science, do your part and give up your lifestyle, freedom, and move into a tiny apartment in the city.
                        “Breaking News,”

                        “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                        Comment


                        • Mt Bock, you said


                          BTW, once again you miss the implication that if all the pro-ACC/AGW cult believers were to stop exhaling CO2 the "problem" they think exists would be solved.
                          1)all life takes in oxygen and exhales co2, plants take in co2 and release oxygen, you should know this
                          2) you (deniers )are in the minority in the world, the rest of the world is proceeding to do something about global warming with out you.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                            NASA is left-leaning?

                            What if they are right and you and other deniers are wrong?
                            It was under Obama in particular. Since when did the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an agency tasked with design and development of aircraft and space vehicles become one doing climate change? That isn't their job. But, the Obama administration made it one of their jobs, just like he did with many other agencies.

                            Aside from that, even NASA has alternatives to CO2...

                            https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley...04/04-140.html

                            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...0110015362.pdf

                            The problem with reports like the Fourth Assessment is, they follow the conventional Leftist dogma of "It's man-made, and it's CO2 causing it..." Yet, there is slowly more and more evidence of alternate science based explanations that drive a stake in the heart of that position.

                            Comment


                            • "Mt" Shack;

                              Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                              Mt Bock, you said


                              BTW, once again you miss the implication that if all the pro-ACC/AGW cult believers were to stop exhaling CO2 the "problem" they think exists would be solved.
                              Perhaps this was too subtle for you. Basically the same as "Take a running leap off a long pier into very deep water."

                              Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                              1)all life takes in oxygen and exhales co2, plants take in co2 and release oxygen, you should know this
                              I suspect you meant to say: "all "ANIMAL"(Fauna) life takes in oxygen..."; a significant distinction and once again an example of how you (like most other "gorebots") fail to use precise language and specific terms. Is this ignorance or intentionally lying???

                              As for "...plants take in co2 ..." This is a point I have often presented here and in the other related threads on the subject of ACC/AGW so yes I know this, and 'know it' better it would seem than you and your fellow shysters/gorebots. One of many false claims from the pro-ACC/AGW mob is that we humans need to get CO2 levels back where they were pre-Industrial Age, around 240-280ppm. It has been presented here that plants/Flora need a minimum of about 300ppm to barely thrive, higher levels would be more beneficial to Flora, which are about 99+% of living biomass on this planet. Hence one of many reasons for my assertion that the pro-ACC/AGW mob are anti-Life in their agenda. (In case this isn't clear and plain to you, reducing CO2 levels from 400ppm to less than 300ppm would be detrimental to most of the Life on this planet.)

                              Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                              2) you (deniers )are in the minority in the world, the rest of the world is proceeding to do something about global warming with out you.
                              A] we "(deniers)" are not denying the 4 billion year old natural record for Natural Climate Change Cycles (FLUX), nor are we deluded like you pro-ACC/AGW gorebots whom think that Climate can be set to a stagnant range like the thermostat in your home.

                              B] I strongly doubt we Realists on Natural Climate Flux are a "minority" of the World's 7.7 billion humans*. I suspect that most of that 7.7 billion isn't even dialed in on(aware of) the issue. If you have proof documenting your claim, please provide it.

                              From what I've seen, most of "the rest of the world" is doing nothing about "global warming" consistent with the destructive "solution" agenda advocated by you gorebots. If anything, most of the rest of the world is doing just the opposite.

                              BTW, if the world was pursuing the "solutions" advocated by you gorebots, this planet would no longer be able to support and keep alive over half of the 7.7 billion. Are you and your true believer fanatics willing to do the noble and ethical thing and start this trend of human population decline ???

                              While you are at it, please tell us why it would be better for the planet to be in a cycle of climate cooling and racing towards another Ice Age, which is what will likely happen if we were to apply your misguided "solutions".

                              *https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • David said

                                I strongly doubt we Realists on Natural Climate Flux are a "minority" of the World's 7.7 billion humans*. I suspect that most of that 7.7 billion isn't even dialed in on(aware of) the issue. If you have proof documenting your claim, please provide it
                                O K here it is 51% see global warming as a problem. the us is 41 % and middle east is 26 %
                                you asked for documentation here it is

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X