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

  • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    What a one-sided, myopic hit piece that was. At one point it says "We're not going to give climate deniers time..." as if everyone who has reservations about anthropogenic climate change, and CO2 as the source, are simply raving loons.
    The problem is with those, like the makers of that video who are unwilling to hear or consider information and facts contrary to their own point of view.
    So, you have a video that presents no factual evidence just a litany of like-minded "believers," if you will, who paint the opposition as nothing more than some sort of delusional idiots.
    That video is worthless.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      What a one-sided, myopic hit piece that was. At one point it says "We're not going to give climate deniers time..." as if everyone who has reservations about anthropogenic climate change, and CO2 as the source, are simply raving loons.
      The problem is with those, like the makers of that video who are unwilling to hear or consider information and facts contrary to their own point of view.
      So, you have a video that presents no factual evidence just a litany of like-minded "believers," if you will, who paint the opposition as nothing more than some sort of delusional idiots.
      That video is worthless.
      Yup!
      The 'raving loons' and 'delusional idiots' are the ones whom "believe in" ACC/AGW.

      The foundation of the ACC/AGW hypothesis is that slightly increased heat retention of one part CO2 is going to cause an equal heat rise/increase in the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere (those 2,499 parts being nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.).
      The math doesn't compute ... the so-called "science" is non-science/non-sense.

      Now if everyone whom believes in ACC/AGW would just stop exhaling CO2, the "problem" would be solved.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Yep, you guys are undoubtedly correct-the US is not in any danger from climate change:


        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...tandhp#image=1
        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


        • There is a certain inversion of reality in the AGW debate that has become a pathological characteristic of the left today. The influence of social constructionist ideologies such as post modernism and neo Marxism have started to influence science in ways scientists are not apparently aware. It is
          actually not surprising that the instinct driven dogma of social justice passes unnoticed by scientists because they really are often are as disconnected from emotional reality as pop culture portrays them. It may even be a prerequisite for objectivity. That pop culture would portray or define it as social awkwardness is simply the expression of the dominance of subjectivity in the left's dogma.

          The inversion of reality in this case is that a hypotheses that is intimately tied to the distribution of resources has come to exclude historical evidence. You need not reject the AGW hypotheses to note that climate change that is based on the historical evidence is a more immediate threat than the type hypothesized. The reality of the little ice age is beyond dispute as is the necessary social consequences. While the consequences of AGW are far from conclusive and definitively care both risks and benefits there is certainty on the probability of another little ice age and it's consequences. The next major volcanic eruption or other natural disaster that plunges the world into cooling conditions that preclude normal agricultural productivity is not a hypotheses but a probability.

          In light of the evidence the obsession with AGW can only be seen as a political ploy and not as an overwhelming concern for humanity. It has already been seen that AGW activists are largely indifferent to the benefits of fossil fuels in eliminate absolute poverty in the third world. Further evidence of a subliminal anti human disposition can be seen in declining birth rates amount those countries infected with social justice dogma. There are many other examples I will not bother outlining, suffice it to say that luxus not humanism seems the underlying cause of the displayed nihilism.

          There is simply no logical reason other than politics to make AGW our primary focus. The preference for the illusion of the natural order over human interests can be seen in California's dystopian water policy which has had virtual no environmental benefits and severe human costs. All societies in history that have focused on religious (think social justice) rather than practical necessity such as water and food security have dissolved. While abstract reasoning can be extremely powerful it is also easily perverted by the human inclination to join religious cults similar to the current environmental movement.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            'A Tipping Point.' Greenland's Ice Is Melting Much Faster Than Previously Thought, Scientists Say

            https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-tipp...045834994.html

            Then there's the case of "Glacier Girl". A P-38 which was part of a flight of aircraft that crash landed on a Greenland glacier back in early 1942. About 50 years later when recovery efforts started it was covered in about 268 feet of ice, that being snow which had compacted during the past half century. Obviously "global warming" caused this.
            http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/index.htm
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl
            https://www.airspacemag.com/history-...tory-19218360/
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Massena View Post
              Yep, you guys are undoubtedly correct-the US is not in any danger from climate change:


              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...tandhp#image=1
              Wah, wah, wha…



              Sea levels have risen pretty linearly since the end of the ice age. In the period supposedly covering Gorebal Warming, they've gone up about 4 to 6". BFD.

              Just a storms and storm intensity has remained fairly constant.



              The reason there is more property damage is the population is increasing and the number of people living and building structures in these zones has increased. At the same time, construction and building code hasn't forced people living in these zones to build resistant structures. Florida has gotten serious about this with what's called "Dade County" building code. You are seeing far less damage there than years ago.
              Florida is also realizing the state is essentially a low lying swamp and that tidal surges are a significant issue.

              The annual historical sea level increase is about 3 to 4 mm a year (or about 1/8"). Those claiming it will rise inches in a few years, or suddenly start increasingly rising have nothing to go on. They're fearmongering.

              Also, it's not that I don't think humanity doesn't have an impact on climate. I think we do. But, I think it's minor compared to nature and not primarily CO2. Just the fact that the most vocal believers in Gorebal Warming think it is a mono-problem (eg., that CO2 is the beginning and end of anthropogenic climate change) tells me they have accepted an almost religious, dogmatic solution to a very complex system based largely on nonsense.

              Comment


              • Here's an interesting example of how there is still much more to learn about climate(s) before we begin to tinker with Geo-enginering. Baffin Island is fairly large and it's N-S axis is nearly as long as Greenland's. Both of them remain fairly snow(ice, and glacier) covered along with many other landmasses of the Canadian far North, even more so than many other land masses on either side of the Arctic Circle around the globe. With last Ice Age(Glaciation) having ended around 12-15,000 years ago and the ice and glaciers in those other regions greatly reduced and melting, that didn't happen so much in NE Canada-Greenland region.


                A landscape unseen in over 40,000 years
                ...
                Glacial retreat in the Canadian Arctic has uncovered landscapes that haven't been ice-free in more than 40,000 years and the region may be experiencing its warmest century in 115,000 years, new University of Colorado Boulder research finds.

                The study, published today in the journal Nature Communications, uses radiocarbon dating to determine the ages of plants collected at the edges of 30 ice caps on Baffin Island, west of Greenland. The island has experienced significant summertime warming in recent decades.

                "The Arctic is currently warming two to three times faster than the rest of the globe, so naturally, glaciers and ice caps are going to react faster," said Simon Pendleton, lead author and a doctoral researcher in CU Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR).

                Baffin is the world's fifth largest island, dominated by deeply incised fjords separated by high-elevation, low-relief plateaus. The thin, cold plateau ice acts as a kind of natural cold storage, preserving ancient moss and lichens in their original growth position for millennia.

                "The Arctic is currently warming two to three times faster than the rest of the globe, so naturally, glaciers and ice caps are going to react faster," said Simon Pendleton, lead author and a doctoral researcher in CU Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR).

                Baffin is the world's fifth largest island, dominated by deeply incised fjords separated by high-elevation, low-relief plateaus. The thin, cold plateau ice acts as a kind of natural cold storage, preserving ancient moss and lichens in their original growth position for millennia.

                Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-landsc...years.html#jCp

                Another question waiting to be "answered" is what caused that "global warming" 40,000 plus years ago allowing the plants to grow there before getting covered in ice ???

                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Todays Drudge headlines;
                  CHICAGO'S DEEPEST FREEZE
                  COLDEST IN LIFETIME!
                  HEAT OFF IN BUILDING
                  WARNING: DON'T TALK
                  MIDWEST FEELS LIKE -60°
                  CHILL MAP


                  Meanwhile, here in Pacific NorthWest(PNW) ~ Washington State, we're having sunny and high 40s to low 50s. More like an early Spring than mid-Winter. My honeybees are a bit 'confused', but active finding pollen.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • The New Language of Climate Change


                    Scientists and meteorologists on the front lines of the climate wars are testing a new strategy to get through to the skeptics and outright deniers.
                    ...
                    PHOENIX—Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.

                    That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,” so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.

                    That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought, debate new weather prediction models and digest all manner of analysis on climatic mutations.

                    Educating the public and policymakers about climate change at a time when elected leaders are doubling down on denying that it is happening at all or that humans are responsible for it demands a new lexicon, conference attendees told me—one that can effectively narrate the overwhelming scientific evidence but not get sucked into the controversy fueled most prominently by President Donald Trump.

                    The hope is to persuade the small but powerful minority that stands in the way of new policies to mitigate climate change’s worst long-term effects—as well as the people who vote for them—that something needs to be done or their own livelihoods and health will be at stake.

                    The new language taking root is meant to instill this sense of urgency about what is happening in ways to which everyday citizens can relate— without directly blaming it on human activity: The spring blossoms keep coming earlier; seasonal allergies are worsening and lasting longer; extreme heat is upending the kids’ summer camp schedule; crops are drying up or washing away at alarming rates.

                    And wherever possible, climate specialists told me, they are trying to explain the more frequent and deadly weather events in purely historical terms: These storms, these droughts, these dramatic fluctuations in temperature have previously taken place—once a century, or even once a millennium. But they keep coming.
                    ...
                    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...olitics-224295

                    The red highlight is my doing and meant to show it is all still "political", mostly seeking a new semantics and rhetoric to push a political instilled geo-engineering agenda.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • So, if climate scientists are going to re-term Gorebal Warming from Climate Change to Climate Mutation, then there's an excellent chance that Climate Change, as with Global Warming, having become a pejorative. This is much like "Liberal" moving to "Progressive" because of the same negative connotation associated with it.

                      The problem with their new strategy is that it is measurable, and there is lots of historic data available. That dooms them with this approach.
                      For example, the article claims "crops are drying up or washing away at alarming rates.



                      World food production is going up, and will continue to rise. Where's the alarm in that? That's one example of how history and actual data contradicts the vague statement above.

                      Comment


                      • Record Cold Forces Rethink on Global Warming

                        ...
                        Headlines around the world are reporting exceptionally frigid conditions and unusually high levels of snowfall in recent weeks. They tout these events as records, but few people understand how short the record actually is -- usually less than 50 years, a mere instant in Earth’s 4.6-billion year history. The reality is that, when viewed in a wider context, there is nothing unusual about current weather patterns.

                        Despite this fact, the media -- directly, indirectly, or by inference -- often attribute the current weather to global warming. Yes, they now call it climate change. But that is because activists realized, around 2004, that the warming predicted by the computer models on which the scare is based was not actually happening. Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continued to increase, but the temperature stopped increasing. So, the evidence no longer fit the theory. English biologist Thomas Huxley commented on this dilemma over a century ago:
                        "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

                        Yet, the recent weather is a stark reminder that a colder world is a much greater threat than a warmer one. While governments plan for warming, all the indications are that the world is cooling. And, contrary to the proclamations of climate activists, every single year more people die from the cold than from the heat.

                        A study in British medical journal The Lancet reached the following conclusion:
                        Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.


                        How did this bizarre situation develop? It was a deliberate, orchestrated deception. The results of the investigation of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately premeditated to focus on the negative impacts of warming. In their original 1988 mandate from the UN, global warming is mentioned three times, while cooling is not mentioned even once. The UN notes that:
                        [C]ontinued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.


                        This narrow focus was reinforced when the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a body the IPCC is required to support, defined climate change as being caused by human activity.

                        IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) produced the evidence that human-created CO2 was causing global warming. That finding became the premise for Working Group 2 (WG2), which examined the negative impact, and Working Group 3 (WG3), which proposed mitigation policies and actions to stop the warming. The IPCC did not follow the mandatory scientific method of allowing for the null hypothesis; namely, what to do if evidence shows CO2 is not causing warming.

                        As MIT professor emeritus of atmospheric meteorology Richard Lindzen said, they reached a consensus before the research even began. The consensus “proved” the hypothesis was correct, regardless of the evidence. To reinforce the point, the UK government hired Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist, to produce an economic review of the impact of warming. Instead of doing a normal cost/benefit analysis as any non-political economist would do, he produced what became known as the 2006 Stern Review -- which only examined the cost.

                        If Stern and the IPCC did a proper study, they would find that the impact of cooling is much more deleterious to all life on Earth, especially humans. Anthropologists tell us two great advances in human evolution gave us more control of the cold. Fire and clothing both created microclimates that allowed us to live in regions normally inaccessible. Consider the city of Winnipeg, with three technological umbilical cords: the electricity from the north, the gas from the west, and the water pipeline from the east. Three grenades set off at 2:00 a.m. on a January morning with temperatures of -30°C would render the city frozen solid within hours.

                        Between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures went down. The consensus by 1970 was that global cooling was underway and would continue. Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling typified the alarmism:
                        It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.


                        Change the seventh word to warming, and it is the same threat heard today. The big difference is that cooling is a much greater threat. To support that claim, the CIA produced at least two reports examining the social and political unrest aggravated mainly by crop failure due to cooling conditions. The World Meteorological Organization also did several studies on the historical impact of cooling on selected agricultural regions, and projected further global cooling.
                        ...
                        https://pjmedia.com/trending/record-...lobal-warming/
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Now here's something really worth serious consideration, discussion, and factoring (to the point I may start a new and separate thread on this). One of many factors involved in climate change; warming or cooling, is where and when you gauge such to. As the excerpts I'll quote show, a large part of the debate, and if or not we should engage "solutions"/geo-engineering depends on if we are much "out of whack"(if at all) from what should or could be, and also if it's really our(human) fault. Also, is the situation one we can really "fix" or will the efforts and solutions currently proposed do more harm and damage than we can know and gauge. Defining a true 'pre-industrial' climate period

                          ...
                          Scientists are seeking to define a new baseline from which to measure global temperatures - a time when fossil-fuel burning had yet to change the climate.

                          At the moment, researchers tend to use the period 1850-1900, and this will often be described as "pre-industrial".

                          But the reality is that this date range came after industry really got going.

                          And the influence of humans on the climate was already in play, judging from the ice cores that retain a record of carbon dioxide emissions.

                          These show a perceptible uptick by 1850-1900; likewise for other greenhouse gases such as methane.

                          It is these inconsistencies that prompted Ed Hawkins from Reading University and colleagues to look for a more appropriate historical reference period.

                          And in a new paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), they suggest 1720-1800 might serve as a better "starting line".
                          ....
                          But giving policy-makers a more precise picture of how human-induced global warming has taken hold might better inform the targets they set.

                          Remember, the Paris agreement sought to maintain global average temperatures to "well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels".

                          The most recent UK Met Office analysis indicates 2016 was "around 1.1C" above this 1850-1900 baseline.

                          But if this reference is wrongly set, and possibly now adjusted, it potentially changes how we view the policy targets.

                          Re-draw the baseline to a warmer or cooler starting point and it will take us either further away or closer to those targets.
                          ...
                          As with all things climate, the issue is a complex one. 1720-1800 has the advantage that it encompasses a time in which fossil fuel use and industrial production was still nascent (James Watt patented his game-changing steam engine condenser in 1769).

                          And it also avoids some of the big natural impacts that can perturb the climate.

                          For example, the early 1800s are marked by some truly colossal volcanic eruptions, such as in 1809 (location unknown) and in 1815 (Tambora).

                          The ash and sulphur emissions from these volcanoes would have depressed global temperatures.

                          Likewise, if you go back much before 1720, you enter a period when the Sun was particularly inactive; there were remarkably few sunspots for instance (the so-called Maunder Minimum). This too would have damped global temperatures.

                          Most of the Frost Fairs on the London Thames occurred before 1720.

                          But that was one city in one part of the world. How do you go about establishing what temperatures were doing across the globe - which is what you need for a proper baseline?

                          1850-1900 was chosen precisely because there is a reasonable instrument record of climate worldwide.

                          Go back into 1720-1800 and long-term temperature records become very sparse. There is a very good one for Central England (back to 1659), and a couple on the continent (Netherlands from 1706; and Central Europe from 1760).
                          ....
                          Dr Hawkins' group used these, together with their understanding of how factors such as greenhouse gases influence the climate, and some modelling, to try to gauge what global temperatures were doing during 1720-1800 - to in essence see if conditions were warmer or cooler than for 1850-1900.

                          And in their assessment, they were likely cooler.

                          "We can assess that there has been a certain amount of temperature change from 1850-1900 up to now, and we think that amount is a lower limit on how much temperature (change) there has been since the true pre-industrial period," Dr Hawkins told BBC News.

                          But the Reading scientist cautions that the uncertainties make it impossible to say precisely how much additional warming there has been if you take 1720-1800 as a new starting point.

                          "In our paper, we give a broad range because of the uncertainties, but the difference is somewhere between minus 0.05C to plus 0.20C, and we're saying it's likely above zero."

                          You could narrow the uncertainties somewhat - for example, by rescuing the millions of 18th-and-19th-century temperature observations that currently sit in books around the world but have yet to be collated and digitised. Or you could simply abandon the notion of an 1850-1900 reference altogether and just use a modern comparison.

                          "This is an option that policy-makers might choose," said Dr Hawkins.

                          "We obviously have much better observations now and over the past few decades, and so the policy-makers may want to reframe the question. So instead of being, 'Can we keep to two degrees above pre-industrial?', it becomes 'Can we limit ourselves to an amount below, say, the last 20 years or so?'.
                          ...
                          https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38745937

                          Red highlighting is mine.

                          One point here is the comment on better observations (instruments) of past FEW DECADES, implying we could be slanting the data we are working with.

                          The other is how a warmer or cooler baseline shifts our perspective.

                          Another I wish to inject is that we should step away from the term "fossil fuel" and use the more inclusive "carbon resource". This puts use of burning wood into the equation as well as earlier use of coal which was a transition fuel of sorts from before use of petroleum and natural gas.

                          I'll add one more here, which I've mentioned often, and that is that plants/Flora on average need about a minimum of 300ppm of CO2 to begin thriving and not be "starved". Perhaps in regard to what is minimum optimal for 99+% of life on this planet, we should measure from that threshold rather than from a chronological one.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47085785
                            "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                            Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                            you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                              PART ONE:

                              Did you read and/or understand the link you just posted ??? !!!

                              Consider this excerpt from your article link, about halfway down/thru;
                              ...
                              Australia has increasingly endured hotter summer temperatures. Last year Sydney experienced its hottest day since 1939, with a maximum temperature of 47.3C.

                              "The warming trend which has seen Australian temperatures increase by more than one degree in the last 100 years also contributed to the unusually warm conditions," Dr Watkins said.
                              ...

                              So what caused the record setting back in 1939, about 80 years ago, ???

                              Consider that human global population was about 1/6-1/8 what it is now with a corresponding usage of "fossil fuels"/Carbon Resources being less so than compared to "now", so the case for "human caused"/Anthropogenic is still not indicated nor validated by your link.

                              Also the chart at end of that article shows only back to 1910, and in a more accurate gauge of climatic trends we should go back about 2-300 years, not 100+. One problem there being that instrument quality and quantity of measurements wasn't as plentiful nor accurate as in recent decades, so there is this on going case of data accuracy and completeness which appears to be rather short of the mark needed.

                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                PART ONE:

                                Did you read and/or understand the link you just posted ??? !!!

                                Consider this excerpt from your article link, about halfway down/thru;
                                ...
                                Australia has increasingly endured hotter summer temperatures. Last year Sydney experienced its hottest day since 1939, with a maximum temperature of 47.3C.

                                "The warming trend which has seen Australian temperatures increase by more than one degree in the last 100 years also contributed to the unusually warm conditions," Dr Watkins said.
                                ...

                                So what caused the record setting back in 1939, about 80 years ago, ???

                                Consider that human global population was about 1/6-1/8 what it is now with a corresponding usage of "fossil fuels"/Carbon Resources being less so than compared to "now", so the case for "human caused"/Anthropogenic is still not indicated nor validated by your link.

                                Also the chart at end of that article shows only back to 1910, and in a more accurate gauge of climatic trends we should go back about 2-300 years, not 100+. One problem there being that instrument quality and quantity of measurements wasn't as plentiful nor accurate as in recent decades, so there is this on going case of data accuracy and completeness which appears to be rather short of the mark needed.
                                Warming is the convenient truth used to justify an environmental movement that has been hijacked by socialist.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X