Catskills Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You could be right- I would've shhht myself. Personally, I am not gloom and doom. It's gloom and doom to the industrialists who will eventually be done in- perhaps not by science -YET- science needs to catch up with what we know intuitively. So, the question begs to be asked- do you think its ok to pollute?- is this a "God" given right that we as humans enjoy- ? What I see a lot of is people hiding behind the argument "science hasn't proved it, so it must not be so" I don't buy it. You can- we all have that right- as far I am concerned I will not get hung up in the argument of "science"- I don't need science to know you shouldn't crap in your own nest- my parents brought me up that way. But with the degradation of societal norms by the likes of television and their related bretheren- the human, in general, doesn't really give a shhht, right? . Will AGW stop the next ice sheet? Frankly, I don't think so. But that still doesn't make it OK to dump tons and tons of waste into the atmosphere. While it can't and won't be stopped immediately, it will stop. For that I am certain- By the way, when do you think the last period of glaciation ended? I must admit all these climate conversations make great reading. One thing I do not understand is that some years ago "pollution" was the main concern. And, certainly, that is a concern. It seems to have been crowded out/replaced/politically substituted by global warming issues. You really don't see many popular articles concerned with pollution. What ever happened to Rachel Carson's legacy? As long as I'm griping, the obvious politicization of these matters is the (I think often intentional) confusion of climate and weather in the press -- and in many people's minds. Perhaps humanity's future is to live underground. This would give us some protection against astronomical and nuclear threats, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I must admit all these climate conversations make great reading. One thing I do not understand is that some years ago "pollution" was the main concern. And, certainly, that is a concern. It seems to have been crowded out/replaced/politically substituted by global warming issues. You really don't see many popular articles concerned with pollution. What ever happened to Rachel Carson's legacy? As long as I'm griping, the obvious politicization of these matters is the (I think often intentional) confusion of climate and weather in the press -- and in many people's minds. Perhaps humanity's future is to live underground. This would give us some protection against astronomical and nuclear threats, as well. Worked 10/20k yr ago. Troglodytes Unite - pass the haunch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It seems like for some of you guys it's not enough for people to acknowledge that humans are causing some warming. You guys expect everyone to believe it's a catastrophe of biblical proportions in the making. That's the biggest problem I have with hardcore AGW proponents. The science indicates we could cause 3C to 6C of warming with an attendent climate change commensurate with that amount of warming. That produces a world far outside that which we and the biological world are adapted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The science indicates we could cause 3C to 6C of warming with an attendent climate change commensurate with that amount of warming. That produces a world far outside that which we and the biological world are adapted to. Please tell me you're not serious. We can adapt I'm sure of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catskills Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Worked 10/20k yr ago. Troglodytes Unite - pass the haunch! History has a way of repeating itself -- even with climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Please tell me you're not serious. We can adapt I'm sure of it. If be "we" you mean mankind I totally agree. If however you're referencing anything more complex than a three hierarchic tribal structure I'm no where near as confident. And it you're implying that 1st world living conditions will be viable in 100 years, you're delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 If be "we" you mean mankind I totally agree. If however you're referencing anything more complex than a three hierarchic tribal structure I'm no where near as confident. And it you're implying that 1st world living conditions will be viable in 100 years, you're delusional. I'm saying the quality of life for the average American person is not going to change due to Climate Change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Please tell me you're not serious. We can adapt I'm sure of it. The mean likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2.7C for each doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent radiative forcing. Pre-industrial CO2 in the atmosphere will be doubled at 560ppm by mid century. If you take the science seriously as most climatologists do then this no joke at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The mean likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2.7C for each doubling of CO2 or it's equivalent radiative forcing. Pre-industrial CO2 in the atmosphere will be doubled at 560ppm by mid century. If you take the science seriously as most climatologists do then this no joke at all. I was referring to the second part of your comment not the provable science part about the forcing of CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm saying the quality of life for the average American person is not going to change due to Climate Change. Let's make it easy and stay on the continent. The worst flooding ever recorded took place last year in Western Canada. People were effected, and quality of life took a hit. The hottest, driest period ever recorded effected the quality of life of those in Texas. In Mexico crops burned in the fields as cattle starved and people fled the drought. That was last year - What of the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Let's make it easy and stay on the continent. The worst flooding ever recorded took place last year in Western Canada. People were effected, and quality of life took a hit. The hottest, driest period ever recorded effected the quality of life of those in Texas. In Mexico crops burned in the fields as cattle starved and people fled the drought. That was last year - What of the future? Read the definition of quality of life. You don't have the slightest clue what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I was referring to the second part of your comment not the provable science part about the forcing of CO2. Oh ok, Just a few degrees of warming would be far outside the conditions mankind and the biological world are adapted to. 5C is the difference between a full blown ice age and today, now we stand to add on several more degrees. With global population projected at 9 billion by mid century will most of them be able to adapt? The richer the population, the easier to adapt? The poorer the more difficult merely to sustain food and water. What about conflict over resources made more critical by climate change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I must admit all these climate conversations make great reading. One thing I do not understand is that some years ago "pollution" was the main concern. And, certainly, that is a concern. It seems to have been crowded out/replaced/politically substituted by global warming issues. You really don't see many popular articles concerned with pollution. What ever happened to Rachel Carson's legacy? As long as I'm griping, the obvious politicization of these matters is the (I think often intentional) confusion of climate and weather in the press -- and in many people's minds. Perhaps humanity's future is to live underground. This would give us some protection against astronomical and nuclear threats, as well. Yes. I think the focus on pollution has diminished. But while the climate scientists diligently do their work in the scientific community and search for "truth", the discussions should focus on the tons and tons of debris that is pumped into the "rivers of the sky". Someone say that it is innocuous and we shouldn't be concerned.....I am certain (not on a scientific basis) that it does more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It is so convenient and easy for you to dismiss global warming in your thought process. It's time to face reality. The worlds energy requirements are growing not shrinking. and they are growing at a rapid pace. China doesn't give a **** about "Global Warming", they care about providing their Billion citizens with a modern lifestyle and their industry the competitive advantage in business to compete. Luxuries we've been afforded for decades, that they are yearning for. If you think they are going to slow their use of energy, it's you who needs to face reality. And if we are going to burden ourselves with added cost for the same energy we will just hasten our decline. CO2 output will on increase and likely at an accelerated rate. Nothing the "movement" can do will stop it, it will only harm America and Americans as it will impose costs on us that won't be imposed on the developing world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Read the definition of quality of life. You don't have the slightest clue what it means. Try Maslow's Hierarchy for starters. Do you honestly believe that the quality of life of those fleeing for their lives is in any way comparable to one's whose needs are met? - I fear you are being disingenuous at best. Perhaps you are actually a true believer attempting to show the others just how silly the denial side can be. If so my admiration knows no bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It seems like for some of you guys it's not enough for people to acknowledge that humans are causing some warming. You guys expect everyone to believe it's a catastrophe of biblical proportions in the making. That's the biggest problem I have with hardcore AGW proponents. ,There is real truth to the statement above. Well said ! The speculation, and in some cases exaggeration, of "what might happen" is irritating and frankly, alienates people with a different perspective. It's crazy making. Honestly, we don't know what will happen- but we can't stop trying to figure it out. And do I believe in models? Hell no- they are a "tool"- and their conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt. Just my opinion, ya'll (can you tell I'm from Virginia?). However, it wasn't that long ago (perhaps a couple years) when opponents to idea that there was linkage between human activities and climate change denied (and strongly so) that any warming had occurred. That argument can still be seen today, albeit not so predominately. From the perspective of those arguing AGW, the opponents arguments have gone from "there's no warming" to "warming happens all the time" or "there is no "normal""- and so there is no problem". In my opinion, it is important to let science do it's work- but if one strongly believe in one side or the other, than get involved and become an activist. Activists don't have to follow the scientific method (and don't care, unless it conveniently supports their point of view). I see it all the time in my work. Again, I can't prove it but, I believe that humanity's pollution of the waters and the air will eventually have deleterious effects on human health and the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Let's make it easy and stay on the continent. The worst flooding ever recorded took place last year in Western Canada. People were effected, and quality of life took a hit. The hottest, driest period ever recorded effected the quality of life of those in Texas. In Mexico crops burned in the fields as cattle starved and people fled the drought. That was last year - What of the future? People die from weather every year. What you posted isn't anything new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 People die from weather every year. What you posted isn't anything new. Frank, it wasn't intended as anything new. What I was hoping to point out is that people's lives are being disrupted by climate change right now. This winter abnormal cold in Europe has killed something in excess of 200 people. This is not going to get better, especially if nothing is done to try and ameliorate the situation. The quality of life today for most Americans is poorer than it was a generation ago. The quality of life for most of the world is going to be considerably worse a generation from now, unless scientists are right about the Methane being released under the ESAS, in that case most humans won't survive another generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Let's make it easy and stay on the continent. The worst flooding ever recorded took place last year in Western Canada. People were effected, and quality of life took a hit. The hottest, driest period ever recorded effected the quality of life of those in Texas. In Mexico crops burned in the fields as cattle starved and people fled the drought. That was last year - What of the future? And weather events never happened in the past. Explain the dust bowl years, or the record cold in Europe, Theres catastrophic weather events every day and every year on this planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The worlds energy requirements are growing not shrinking. and they are growing at a rapid pace. China doesn't give a **** about "Global Warming", they care about providing their Billion citizens with a modern lifestyle and their industry the competitive advantage in business to compete. Luxuries we've been afforded for decades, that they are yearning for. If you think they are going to slow their use of energy, it's you who needs to face reality. And if we are going to burden ourselves with added cost for the same energy we will just hasten our decline. CO2 output will on increase and likely at an accelerated rate. Nothing the "movement" can do will stop it, it will only harm America and Americans as it will impose costs on us that won't be imposed on the developing world. Notice that solar cells have come down in price and increased sufficiently in efficiency to become competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity (in some circs, at least)? If we invested as heavily in developing and mass producing energy saving technologies, we would be in a position to make money off them. It really wouldn't take that much. Then when China and India have their spike in energy intensive development - I agree, this WILL happen - we could actually make money off it as we also mitigate its impact on climate. You'd be surprised - I was in Beijing 10 years ago in October when they were having a spell of bad smog. They do too give a sh*t about it - enough to buy technology that helps them avoid the desertification of the Yellow River plain. They can't afford that and they know it. They'll compete with us, and hasten the development and distribution of the best solutions. We CAN do something about it. It would probably cost less than we lose right now by the corporate welfare embedded in our tax structure. We just can't do it and also believe the canonical idiocies about economic development fed to us by the corporate media and the sorry bunch of GOP retreads currently running for high office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I also wonder what the impact of the lumber market will have on reforestation. Considering building has all but stopped and paper use has to of plummeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The worlds energy requirements are growing not shrinking. and they are growing at a rapid pace. China doesn't give a **** about "Global Warming", they care about providing their Billion citizens with a modern lifestyle and their industry the competitive advantage in business to compete. Luxuries we've been afforded for decades, that they are yearning for. If you think they are going to slow their use of energy, it's you who needs to face reality. And if we are going to burden ourselves with added cost for the same energy we will just hasten our decline. CO2 output will on increase and likely at an accelerated rate. Nothing the "movement" can do will stop it, it will only harm America and Americans as it will impose costs on us that won't be imposed on the developing world. You continue to avoid the question of global warming in your narrative. You brush it off as if it does not factor into your thinking at all. You speak only to the issue of mitigation and the reasons why we can not or should not act. No one is going to slow their energy use, it's not going to happen and no one is advocating for any such thing. I am facing reality, you are avoiding it. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate the sciences which AGW is based on tell us are causing the Earth's surface to warm at a pace and extent which will radically alter the global climate very, very quickly in geological terms. Because you can not imagine a practical way to avoid this if true is no reason to ignore or deny the science. I don't think we will do enough, fast enough to avoid serious consequences. I think we're screwed, but I am not burying my head in the sand because of concern for secondary economic/political implications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 When will we start with all these tech solutions. Carter put solar panels on the White House, squeezed much better economies out of autos and encouraged insulation using tax credits. Reagan trashed everything, and now 3 decades later, I'm asking when will we start? Sorry to dig this thread/post up, but I wanted to point something out. The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was signed into law in 1992 by then Republican President George HW Bush. The tax credit at the time was for 1.5 cents/kWhr which has since been adjusted to 2.2 cents for infaltion. The PTC is the sole driver for wind and other renewable energy sources to have made such monumental gains in the last 20 years. I have seen wind turbine technolgy since 2000 go from the several hundred kilowatt machine to now machines rated at 5MW and higher. These advances would not have been made without this legislation. Legislation brought on by the former VP of Reagan. Now the PTC is again up for renewal at the end of the year. Let's see if the democratic lead administration can keep it going. I really don't understand where you can possibly come out and ask "when will we start?" You obviously need to educate yourself on what has been going on in the renewable industry before making such comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Sorry to dig this thread/post up, but I wanted to point something out. The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was signed into law in 1992 by then Republican President George HW Bush. The tax credit at the time was for 1.5 cents/kWhr which has since been adjusted to 2.2 cents for infaltion. The PTC is the sole driver for wind and other renewable energy sources to have made such monumental gains in the last 20 years. I have seen wind turbine technolgy since 2000 go from the several hundred kilowatt machine to now machines rated at 5MW and higher. These advances would not have been made without this legislation. Legislation brought on by the former VP of Reagan. Now the PTC is again up for renewal at the end of the year. Let's see if the democratic lead administration can keep it going. I really don't understand where you can possibly come out and ask "when will we start?" You obviously need to educate yourself on what has been going on in the renewable industry before making such comments. Was thinking about last years CO2 numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Hey, the Earth was also once a ball of molten rock and it will one day be absorbed in a red giant sun. Perspective after all. Yup, so we don't have to worry about or do anything about climate change. Just drill baby drill and burn baby burn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohleary Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 When will we start with all these tech solutions. Carter put solar panels on the White House, squeezed much better economies out of autos and encouraged insulation using tax credits. Reagan trashed everything, and now 3 decades later, I'm asking when will we start? Can you back that up? This says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia...._efficiency.png The only period I don't see much of an increase is Clinton's term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 from 1979-1982 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose dramatically and the price of fuel increased; from 1984-1986 the fuel economy rose as the CAFE standard rose and the price of fuel decreased rapidly; from 1986-1988 the fuel economy rose at a significantly subdued rate and eventually leveled off as the price of fuel fell and the CAFE standard was relaxed[15] Standards were put in place in 79 - last yrs of Carter Reagan Republicans didn't reverse same till 1986 (Reagan) If you remember any of the politics from the period the Republicans accused the Democrats of legislating for smaller - less safe vehicles, while the Democrats reviled the Republicans for keeping gas guzzlers on the street. It was a campaign that ran in every election cycle from 1980 on, sometimes with more emphasis, sometimes with less. Today when you picture a real republican, he's driving an SUV or a Pickup Truck - Picture a pure Democrat and it's a Prius driving, bicycle riding whomever. Old Memes die hard, and that was when the campaign was launched The actual regulations put in place back in 1979 weren't changed too often during the ensuing years. Republicans would promise to loosen them, Democrats would promise to tighten them, but very little actually changed except in 1986 and I think again when Hummers made the scene and were basically exempted. http://en.wikipedia....ge_Fuel_Economy Contains some of this - but anyone living through the period certainly remembers the electioneering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Hi Terry, please check your PMs. You haven't read the one I sent you yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Hi Terry, please check your PMs. You haven't read the one I sent you yet. Hope my reply got through this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.