Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2017, 05:39 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"Until recently, China and India have been cast as obstacles, at the very least reluctant conscripts, in the battle against climate change. That reputation looks very much out-of-date now that both countries have greatly accelerated their investments in cost-effective renewable energy sources — and reduced their reliance on fossil fuels. It’s America — Donald Trump’s America — that now looks like the laggard."

"China and India are finding that doing right by the planet need not carry a big economic cost and can actually be beneficial. By investing heavily in solar and wind, they and others like Germany have helped drive down the cost of those technologies to a point where, in many places, renewable sources can generate electricity more cheaply than dirtier sources of energy like coal."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opini...p=cur&_r=0
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
24-05-2017, 06:18 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(23-05-2017 08:56 PM)Mircea Wrote:  
(20-05-2017 01:11 PM)morondog Wrote:  What we do know:
1. Carbon dioxide does cause global warming.
2. Carbon dioxide levels are now far in excess of what they have been at any time in history, including the time of the Romans.
3. This is solely due to man's activities in the 20th century, releasing centuries of stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

4. It is a FACT that since the 1860's or so (the time when reliable temperature data started to be collected widely), the global average temperature has gone up by approx 1.87 degrees (if I recall correctly).
5. It is a FACT that the ice caps at the poles are smaller than they once were, and that the arctic sea ice is less in extent every year, to the point that some people think that there may be no arctic sea ice even in *winter*, in the near future (I don't know the period off hand).
6. It is a fact that due to the increased levels of Carbon dioxide in the ocean, the acidity of the ocean has increased to the extent that the great barrier reef is dying and probably cannot be saved.

These facts can all be easily confirmed even by simply reading the wikipedia page on climate change.

Omitted from your "facts" is the fact that the previous Inter-Glacial Period was warmer than the present Inter-Glacial Period.

(23-05-2017 06:10 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "The Greenland Ice Sheet's mass has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites indicates that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland shed approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.03 inches (0.8 millimeters) per year."

-- both from NASA Climate Change

How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

That 8.5°C is 15.3°F, which is much higher than the 10.4°F above current global temperature averages that I've been telling you all about. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is nothing but normal, during an Inter-Glacial Period.

The Earth warms during an Inter-Glacial Period until temperatures peak and Global Cooling starts. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Scientists know about paleoclimatology. We know what the history of climates are on earth. This isn't new information. And despite this, we still advocate for human-influenced climate change. Why? Because the direction (warming) and rate are not normal. We should be entering a cooling phase based on recent (last 200kyr) data. The more recent trends are primarily a consequence of orbital cycles that also effect the global carbon cycle (setting up a positive feedback loop). But we are getting warmer, meaning that another explanation is needed to explain the departure from the historical trend. And human's releasing CO2 is the catalyst that best explains our observations.

So you can continue to post paleoclimate data, but it won't prove your point. You need to explain why human-released CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas like it is historically (and we've he physics to support that too but we will ignore that for a moment) and why the earth is getting warmer instead of cooler.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-05-2017, 06:36 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Sorry, guys, but I have incontrovertible proof global warming is a freaking lie. Drinking Beverage

[Image: anti-global-warming-arugments.jpg?w=1400]

What do you mean to tell me I, an average bozo (bozette? Consider ) on the internet don't know as much as those arrogant scientists and experts? Get outta here!

It's all going to be juuuuuust fine.

[Image: Twitter-_When-you-drowning-in-work-but-accb62.png]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
24-05-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Wow. This is fascinating. Kind of like Wikipedia.

The Bearded Dude mentioned my politics. As a non-voting minimalist, anarchist, individualist, anti-authoritarian capitalist (well, I have owned and operated my own analytical lab for 23 years, so there you go) with no religious affiliation, I am not sure what you are getting at.

What I can tell you is that the editors of Rolling Stone supported Sanders, the socialist. They also have had multiple headlines on their covers warning about the runaway warming of the planet. Readers, we are doomed. And it is our fault. Now, is this just coincidence? Or are the two connected?

Some of you might think that I am pretty cool because I read Rolling Stone. No, I just see the covers on someone else’s magazine. But, I did copy the article about Trump, the narcissist, to send to my brother.

My socialist sisters, lovers of pig fat by the way (screw science, what do they know?), also think we are doomed. And one blames a certain gender of the human species. Not sure which. They are not scientists, but what the Hell. They have it right. Right?

Does this surprise you at all? It does not surprise me, or my fellow anarchist brother, one bit.

Science fails when adopting a creed. I just love this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2017, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2017 08:02 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 07:58 AM)Walter Wrote:  Wow. This is fascinating. Kind of like Wikipedia.

The Bearded Dude mentioned my politics. As a non-voting minimalist, anarchist, individualist, anti-authoritarian capitalist (well, I have owned and operated my own analytical lab for 23 years, so there you go) with no religious affiliation, I am not sure what you are getting at.

What I can tell you is that the editors of Rolling Stone supported Sanders, the socialist. They also have had multiple headlines on their covers warning about the runaway warming of the planet. Readers, we are doomed. And it is our fault. Now, is this just coincidence? Or are the two connected?

Some of you might think that I am pretty cool because I read Rolling Stone. No, I just see the covers on someone else’s magazine. But, I did copy the article about Trump, the narcissist, to send to my brother.

My socialist sisters, lovers of pig fat by the way (screw science, what do they know?), also think we are doomed. And one blames a certain gender of the human species. Not sure which. They are not scientists, but what the Hell. They have it right. Right?

Does this surprise you at all? It does not surprise me, or my fellow anarchist brother, one bit.

Science fails when adopting a creed. I just love this.

It's not fascinating. It's pathetic.

Edit to add: you're in the wrong thread too. Please go to the pseudoscience version of this thread to present your conspiracies and unrelated and useless anecdotes

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-05-2017, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2017 08:54 AM by morondog.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 07:58 AM)Walter Wrote:  Science fails when adopting a creed. I just love this.

Are you high, or just senile? Fuck sakes. No one gives a flying fuck what you or your brother think, and repeating your slogans and bullshit just makes you an idiot, it doesn't make you right.

Stop telling us whatever the fuck about the nutrition industry in the 70s IT IS IRRELEVANT, except you seem so goddamn proud of yourself for "seeing through their lies" or whatever you thought you were doing.

You're a pathological nutjob. Get a life and learn some real science.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
24-05-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 06:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(23-05-2017 08:56 PM)Mircea Wrote:  Omitted from your "facts" is the fact that the previous Inter-Glacial Period was warmer than the present Inter-Glacial Period.


How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

That 8.5°C is 15.3°F, which is much higher than the 10.4°F above current global temperature averages that I've been telling you all about. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is nothing but normal, during an Inter-Glacial Period.

The Earth warms during an Inter-Glacial Period until temperatures peak and Global Cooling starts. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Scientists know about paleoclimatology. We know what the history of climates are on earth. This isn't new information. And despite this, we still advocate for human-influenced climate change. Why? Because the direction (warming) and rate are not normal. We should be entering a cooling phase based on recent (last 200kyr) data. The more recent trends are primarily a consequence of orbital cycles that also effect the global carbon cycle (setting up a positive feedback loop). But we are getting warmer, meaning that another explanation is needed to explain the departure from the historical trend. And humans releasing CO2 is the catalyst that best explains our observations.

So you can continue to post paleoclimate data, but it won't prove your point. You need to explain why human-released CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas like it is historically (and we've the physics to support that too but we will ignore that for a moment) and why the earth is getting warmer instead of cooler.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
24-05-2017, 09:31 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Once again if you want to deny climate change there is a thread for that. This thread's purpose is to discuss what's happening all over the world and what can be done about it.

Walter (and anyone else) you have been warned.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-05-2017, 10:43 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 09:31 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Once again if you want to deny climate change there is a thread for that. This thread's purpose is to discuss what's happening all over the world and what can be done about it.

Walter (and anyone else) you have been warned.

Walter's just trolling, but Mircea posted a link to a very decent looking journal, and seems not to have his head up his arse, at least so far based on the few interactions I've had. He's not so much denying climate change as denying that it's a big deal, he seems to have some appreciation for science, and I think that might be an interesting discussion to have...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2017, 04:46 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(24-05-2017 10:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Walter's just trolling, but Mircea posted a link to a very decent looking journal, and seems not to have his head up his arse, at least so far based on the few interactions I've had. He's not so much denying climate change as denying that it's a big deal, he seems to have some appreciation for science, and I think that might be an interesting discussion to have...

If this is the same Mircea from citydata, then he's the sort of conservative voice that should be pretty welcome around here; I don't always agree with his conclusions, but you couldn't ask for better poster who presents more thought out, non-hyperbolic responses along with plenty of citations to back them up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grauwyler's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: