Climate change - continued from a discussion in another thread

[madmark285]

I think what most people don't like is hypocrites - the Al Gores, the Ted Cruz's of the world.

It's hard to believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

I also believe in climate change, our kids/grandkids will have a mess on their hands.

But same as you, I have an issue with the hypocrites. Top of my list is Leonardo DiCaprio. A couple years ago Leo took a year off to concentrate on the environment, which meant flying around the world accepting numerous awards.

One year Leo want to celebrate New Years twice, so they had a party in Australia and when midnight hit, they jump on a private jet and flew to Las Vegas for party #2. Hmmm, what's the carbon footprint for that adventure.

Leo bought a island in the Caribbean, he is turning it into a eco-resort for the rich and famous. Of course to get to the island will require a private jet to the nearest airport then most likely jump on a power boat with twin turbo charge diesel. But once there , your electric will be solar during the day.


And us common folks should feel guilty about burning 30 gallons of gasoline in our jet skies?

 

[Colin_T]

I also believe in climate change, our kids/grandkids will have a mess on their hands.

Only if they survive long enough to see the future. If things keep going like they are and people don't hit 0% greenhouse gas emmisions in 10 years, there won't be anything left alive on the planet at 2050.

Talking of flying, apparently there is a plant based jet fuel that Bill Gates (from Microsoft) uses. It's hideously expensive but made from renewable resources and is nowhere near as bad as normal jet fuel when it comes to the environment.

People have to stop thinking of money and think about the planet. If the human race wants to survive, it needs to forget about money and focus on looking after our home, the Earth. Money doesn't mean anything if we're all dead due to climate change.

 

[Snagrio]

Only if they survive long enough to see the future. If things keep going like they are and people don't hit 0% greenhouse gas emmisions in 10 years, there won't be anything left alive on the planet at 2050.

Talking of flying, apparently there is a plant based jet fuel that Bill Gates (from Microsoft) uses. It's hideously expensive but made from renewable resources and is nowhere near as bad as normal jet fuel when it comes to the environment.

People have to stop thinking of money and think about the planet. If the human race wants to survive, it needs to forget about money and focus on looking after our home, the Earth. Money doesn't mean anything if we're all dead due to climate change.

Right, like how 2000 was supposed to spell doom for the planet, or 2010, no sorry I meant 2020. Notice how the dates keep getting pushed back. It's no different from fanatic Christians who try to predict the second coming of Christ every few years.

And like I'm going to go along with anything Bill Gates cooks up. He's one of the high elites, the people who want all of us common folk to revert back to the stone age to "save the planet" while they retain their high luxury lifestyle and lord over us more than they already do. As has been brought up in this thread before, pay attention to what all these celebrities and politicians DO, not what they SAY.

Climate change is real, but guess what, it's always been real. You know the Sahara desert? Used to be a tropical paradise rich with life, now it's a giant sandbox. Yet it turned into that thousands of years ago, long before mankind was even remotely capable of manually changing the global climate as we're constantly told to believe. Indeed where I live I often joke how every year is like opening a new bag of chocolates and seeing what you get. Some years are dry, some are wet, some have 5 different weather conditions every other week. Weather patterns, they are always changing.

Scientists can yell all that want about statistics and graphs, but in the end they have their own masters to answer to, masters who dictate what counts as "science" for their own gains. The very field itself has been bought out politically long ago, so it's wise to not take every article thrown out there as absolute, no matter how convincing, and dig a little deeper.

To say humanity has not had negative effects on the planet would be foolish to be sure, with things like trash in the ocean, invasive species, deforestation, ect. But the key here is that there's a difference between being good stewards of the earth and being suckers to the powerful elite who seek to take advantage of people's good will.

 

[FishGuest5123]

Right, like how 2000 was supposed to spell doom for the planet, or 2010, no sorry I meant 2020. Notice how the dates keep getting pushed back. It's no different from fanatic Christians who try to predict the second coming of Christ every few years.

And like I'm going to go along with anything Bill Gates cooks up. He's one of the high elites, the people who want all of us common folk to revert back to the stone age to "save the planet" while they retain their high luxury lifestyle and lord over us more than they already do. As has been brought up in this thread before, pay attention to what all these celebrities and politicians DO, not what they SAY.

Climate change is real, but guess what, it's always been real. You know the Sahara desert? Used to be a tropical paradise rich with life, now it's a giant sandbox. Yet it turned into that thousands of years ago, long before mankind was even remotely capable of manually changing the global climate as we're constantly told to believe. Indeed where I live I often joke how every year is like opening a new bag of chocolates and seeing what you get. Some years are dry, some are wet, some have 5 different weather conditions every other week. Weather patterns, they are always changing.

Scientists can yell all that want about statistics and graphs, but in the end they have their own masters to answer to, masters who dictate what counts as "science" for their own gains. The very field itself has been bought out politically long ago, so it's wise to not take every article thrown out there as absolute, no matter how convincing, and dig a little deeper.

To say humanity has not had negative effects on the planet would be foolish to be sure, with things like trash in the ocean, invasive species, deforestation, ect. But the key here is that there's a difference between being good stewards of the earth and being suckers to the powerful elite who seek to take advantage of people's good will.

So very well said! I was going to site the ice age a few days back but decided not to go there. The earth had been through climate changes, devastating ones before. This is not the beginning of the end of them. Humans, for the most part were not involved in the previous ones. Yes, we must protect our earth just as we must protect our bodies. They are on loan to us, not owned by us.

 

[madmark285]

but in the end they have their own masters to answer to, masters who dictate what counts as "science" for their own gains.

My response. Fame and fortune awaits the person who can prove that mankind's CO2 emission is not the cause of the current rise in temperature and discovers the true cause. We talking about a Nobel prize (with 1 million $), major job offers, speaking fee's starting at $100K, free use of Exxon's jets. Saudi Arabia may even give your a Kingdom of your own, this is major event.

Yet that person would ignore and bury his findings and continue to answer his master...

Should point out, many of the 'scientists' are grad student earning trivial stipends while studying climate change.

 

[Snagrio]

My response. Fame and fortune awaits the person who can prove that mankind's CO2 emission is not the cause of the current rise in temperature and discovers the true cause. We talking about a Nobel prize (with 1 million $), major job offers, speaking fee's starting at $100K, free use of Exxon's jets. Saudi Arabia may even give your a Kingdom of your own, this is major event.

Yet that person would ignore and bury his findings and continue to answer his master...

Should point out, many of the 'scientists' are grad student earning trivial stipends while studying climate change.

Mate, need I remind you the planet used to be a lot warmer than it has been during the time of humanity's reign. Remember an ice age had just ended when the earliest civilizations started, we've been living in the aftermath. In fact it's been theorized that there's been multiple ice ages and subsequent hot climate periods throughout the planet's history, so why all of the sudden is this particular instance squarely our fault?

The answer has always been there in that this is simply how the earth ebbs and flows, nothing is ever constant. It's the powers that be who are spinning this narrative about how humans are the literal worst and that we should dumb ourselves down with increasingly restrictive rules and regulations (surely you've noticed how every passing year seems to make it harder to do the simplest things without having to go through endless bureaucracy). All the while they completely ignore all the rules they've made the rest of us deal with and laugh away in their mansions.

It's never been about saving the planet to these people, it's all about power and control.

 

[madmark285]

so why all of the sudden is this particular instance squarely our fault?

Because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[OnlyGenusCaps]

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

Mate, need I remind you the planet used to be a lot warmer than it has been during the time of humanity's reign. Remember an ice age had just ended when the earliest civilizations started, we've been living in the aftermath. In fact it's been theorized that there's been multiple ice ages and subsequent hot climate periods throughout the planet's history, so why all of the sudden is this particular instance squarely our fault?

If you really want to know, I'd be happy to take a crack at explaining it. Yes, Earth's climate has varied extensively and many times throughout the long history of our little marble. There have been palms at the poles, and at one point Earth was likely a snowball. And just a few thousand years ago as you point out, there were icecaps covering the place where my house now sits. All true. The issue that is of concern is the rate of change, not the amplitude. It reminds me in some ways of the old story of the frogs and the water brought to boil. If you warm your hands up after being out in the cold by putting them in cool water and slowly adding hot, it will be fine, but if you decide to plunge your hand straight into that hot water, it's not going to go as well. It isn't that the Earth is getting warmer that's the problem, it's that if it does so too fast nothing has time to respond appropriately. And I'll agree that's not often communicated super well. If the anticipated changes were going to happen over the next thousands of years rather than the next hundreds, all would likely go pretty well.

In terms of it being "our fault", well there is ample evidence from a number of sources. But in the end, it's pretty easy to equate the carbon we are burning with the new carbon in the air. If you are interested, I am happy to provide more detail. It just didn't feel like this was the main crux of your argument right here.

The answer has always been there in that this is simply how the earth ebbs and flows, nothing is ever constant. It's the powers that be who are spinning this narrative about how humans are the literal worst and that we should dumb ourselves down with increasingly restrictive rules and regulations (surely you've noticed how every passing year seems to make it harder to do the simplest things without having to go through endless bureaucracy). All the while they completely ignore all the rules they've made the rest of us deal with and laugh away in their mansions.

I'd argue that progress is the answer, not what should be curtailed. Shortly before the spread of the automobile, New York City had an intractable problem from their transport mode. There were loads of horses to get people around and all of those horses made... Road apples. It was piling up and no one wanted to take it. Plus, to haul it upstate would take, you guessed it, more horses. There was even a three day conference trying to solve the problem that ended in everyone throwing up their hands in frustration. A few years later, Henry Ford popularized the automobile and the problem of the... Horse leavings simply wasn't a problem anymore. Right now we are at the conference about the pollution problem from our current transportation system. It seems intractable. People argue, but it doesn't get us anywhere. We should be looking to new technologies, like wind, solar, EV, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. They are the model-T of today. If they become cheap enough, the problem everyone was arguing over simply ceases to be a problem anymore. But just like the model-T to today's cars, these new technologies are in their early phases. But I believe in progress. I think the desire to strive, invent, and improve that is the nature of humanity will always give me hope.

Nunc progrediamur!

 

[madmark285]

Right, like how 2000 was supposed to spell doom for the planet,

If referring to Y2K.

IT systems did not crash on 1/1/2000 because we fixed the problem. To be more specific, there was a wholesale replacement of equipment in the 1990, remember the tech boom?

It was a perfect storm, Al Gore successful lead the effort to more the domain servers into the private sector thus commercializing the internet and business now had outdated equipment such as IBM servers with proprietary network protocol ( such as SNA/SDLC). So instead of software update, just buy new stuff. It was good times for companies like Sun Microsystem whose tagline was “The Network is the Computer.”

Where I work, it was a problem with old equipment we sold, the pre-Solaris Sun workstations would not reboot after 1/1/2000.

 

[eatyourpeas]

If referring to Y2K.

IT systems did not crash on 1/1/2000 because we fixed the problem. To be more specific, there was a wholesale replacement of equipment in the 1990, remember the tech boom?

It was a perfect storm, Al Gore successful lead the effort to more the domain servers into the private sector thus commercializing the internet and business now had outdated equipment such as IBM servers with proprietary network protocol ( such as SNA/SDLC). So instead of software update, just buy new stuff. It was good times for companies like Sun Microsystem whose tagline was “The Network is the Computer.”

Where I work, it was a problem with old equipment we sold, the pre-Solaris Sun workstations would not reboot after 1/1/2000.

Sad. I had to trash my Sun. Replaced with an SGI. Now I have a little itty bitty laptop and am much happier!

 

[Utar]

oh boy, These kinds of conversations are in their own way humorous. Human Beings have always changed the environment in which they live.

There is an old story that you have never heard of. When the American continent was first discovered the King of England at that time wanted a tree count, so he sent people over to the newly discovered continent to count trees. When they told the native Americans they needed to count the trees, the natives smiled and said be my guest, you will be here for a while.

Only a few hundred years later there are huge cities with tall buildings and millions of people living in them, they cut down all those trees to make these cities. The rivers were dammed up to make lakes and water reservoirs so people living in these cities could water their manicured lawns. They build railroads, highways, airports, and made cars, so all these people could travel from one end of the continent to the other.

Wikipedia Estimates of the historical world population'

The estimates show that the world's population increased from 0.35-0.40 billion to 10-13 billion in just 700 years. Notice how from 1400 to 1800 there is a slow increase of population, then from 1800 to 2100 an explosion in the increase of population, despite two major world wars and many pandemics.

The most laughable part of these conversations is about people like Leonardo DiCaprio, jet-setting around the world pushing Climate Change.

So get out your grass skirts, don't worry about going topless, don't worry about wearing shoes, don't worry about wearing underwear, because to make all this stuff pollutes the environment. Figure out how to eat without the grocery stores, because processing all this food, and transporting it to those stores pollutes the environment. Move out into the wilderness, that is if you can find any place like that left. Stop going to the doctor, the dentists, etc. Because making all the medicines, and dental tools, pollutes the environment.

If you can't do all that, then stop worrying about it and live your life, I know I am.

 

[StevenF]

Right, like how 2000 was supposed to spell doom for the planet, or 2010, no sorry I meant 2020. Notice how the dates keep getting pushed back. It's no different from fanatic Christians who try to predict the second coming of Christ every few years.

Science is all about observing and even , make a hypothysis on why it happens, and they use that to calculate what will happen using the hypothesis. It that hypothysisis correct the prediction will be accurate and can be verified by anyone to ALWAYS accurately predict the issue.

in the 70'a it looked like the world was cooling and many scientist thought an ice age was commoming. Then it started to warm in the 80s and scientist thought CO2 was warming the earth. In the weather in the 90's and the data seemed to support it. but since 2000 the weather hasn't consistently warmed while CO2 has been steadily increasing. The reason why the dates keep changing is because all the computer models they have built to test the CO2 hypothesis are failing.

And despite avery attempt to correct the models they still fail. In 2000 the models were predicting the earths average temperature would rise by 1 to 1.5 degree by 2020. Using the best satellite temperature data set we have indicate the earth has warmed by 0.4C. And every prediction made by the the models has either happened too early, or oddly appears early and then suddenly disappeared. And the latest ocean and atmospheric temperature data indicate the earth is cooling slightly.

For the last 20 years many researchers pointed to anything they saw that seemed to support CO2 causing warming. Any unusual flooding event in veenac, florida, luisiana is being blammed on sea level rise. but since 1880 sea level has risen by 8 to 9 inches when the floods seem indicate a sea level rise of 1 meter or more. The truth is that many of these flooding events orrure due to soil compaction. New Orleans was once a island above sea level. Now it is in some places 20 feet below sea level and only sea walls and pumps keep the water out. Venace Italy also was once a island and over thousands of years it to is now sinking. Eventually the only way to keep venice dry is a sea wall or to jack it up. And despite claims Pacific slands would disappear to date none have and some are slighlty are larger today than they were 40 years ago. The unusual cold weather over the last couple of years has been blamed on climate change due to CO2 but how can you break a low temperature record that is 100 years old or that predates most of the CO2 increase?

There are small number of scientist that are not receiving any money from anyone that have pointed out some computer model errors that have never been addressed.

• The models assume the sun puts out the same amount of heat all the time. It doesn't some years it is more active and other lesss active. in the 80's and 90s it was very active. Solar activity has been slowly dropping for about 20 years.
• The models don't factor in land use changes. The models assume cities and farms don't grow. But with an ever increcing population our cities and farms are growing . And along int that our roads. Roads are very dark and absorb a lot more heat than a forest.
• The models don't attempt to model ocean circulation but we know El Ninos, la Ninos and the pacific decadal oscillation all affect the water and air temperatures over 10, 20, 30 year periods.
• The models cannot explain the medieval warm period, the Roman warm period or many other warm periods and cold periods in history. I the past it was assumed these were small local events but we now know they were global. Each warm period was about 300 years long and was followed by a much longer cooler period.
• The models cannot predict ice ages or why they ended. Geologist have determined ice didn't start or stop due to changes in CO2. or earth orbital changes. It most likely was caused and ended by a combination of factors.

 

[madmark285]

in the 70'a it looked like the world was cooling and many scientist thought an ice age was commoming.

Incorrect. The vast majority of peer reviewed research supported the planet is warming. Note: Newsweek does not publish peer review research.

T but since 2000 the weather hasn't consistently warmed while CO2 has been steadily increasing.

Incorrect:

The reason why the dates keep changing is because all the computer models they have built to test the CO2 hypothesis are failing.

Incorrect:

New Orleans was once a island above sea level. Now it is in some places 20 feet below sea level and only sea walls and pumps keep the water out.

The city of New Orleans is still above sea level. The New Orleans parishes were original swamps which they drained. As the organic material decayed, the parishes sunk below sea level.

 

[madmark285]

The answer has always been there in that this is simply how the earth ebbs and flows, nothing is ever constant.

Indeed the climate has changed many times in the earth's history and all these events have one thing in common, there was always forcing agent. I will ask you a question, why does the Earth have these long periods of a staple climate? From an engineering point of view, the climate is a very complex feedback system which will remain constant if all inputs remain the same. To change it, you have to modify at least one of the inputs.

So currently we have the data which clearly show a rapid warming trend in the climate, what is the forcing agent for this current trend?

For myself, I believe the vast amount of science which says, mankind CO2 emissions is the forcing agent for our current warming event. If you believe it is something different, I would gladly read any peer reviewed research which supports your position.

It's never been about saving the planet to these people, it's all about power and control.

Exactly who are these people? This is the grand conspiracy theory which is over 20 years old and in this time, these people have never been identified. That's the wonderful thing about conspiracy theory, rarely do they become true and thus, you can continue to use them indefinitely.

Now to be fair, there are radical lefties who do view climate change as an opportunity for a massive wealth distribution plan ie: let's tax the rich nation and send checks to the poor. But they are on the fringe and have little political power. In reality, countries are not even close on passing a revenue neutral carbon tax which will distribute the money equally for that country (zero chance for any global tax). I personally support these plans, rich celebrities like Leo DiCaprio would pay a high tax for his massive carbon footprint, I may get a check for my simple lifestyle.

 

[madmark285]

There are small number of scientist that are not receiving any money from anyone that have pointed out some computer model errors that have never been addressed.

And maybe the reason why they are not receiving any money, they are not working directly with the climate models. To claim there are computer modeling errors may require that you actually read the source code and understand the algorithms. Speculation but I believe these models are quite massive these days, they been expanded them for decades and it may be a full time job to truly understand them

The problem I have with many of your claims on the models, you want me to do your homework ie: find peer reviewed research to counter your claims. I will not fall into that trap, I done that too many times. So where is the peer reviewed research which proves that asphalt used for roads has a significant effect on our climate? Or is this just wild speculation?

Many do not understand the usefulness of climate models, they can only predict trends in the climate. All the models are predicting different outcomes but they all agree on the trends, the planet is warming up.