not worth a reply except for this
"The Right Climate Stuff" .... A realistic view of global environmental issues from Tom Moser
- Thread starter dnewton3
- Start date
- Status
Too late. Everything is based on data and algorithms that run against that data.
*LOL* Well thanks for that! It's nice to be able to make posts, both ways with respecting other views without getting personal!
I was being sincere...
Yet 7% of greenhouse gasses are still in the form of N2O and 4% of that is from transportation. That sounds small but the atmospheric half-life of N2O is 114 years and it absorbs 300x more energy than CO2. I'm not separating CO2, NOx, and SO2 because they are all produced in the same process and reductions in one through not burning the fossil fuel will automatically reduce the others. The question is if catalytic converters and scrubbers are not sufficient to prevent humans from adding enough of this gas into the atmosphere to have an effect on climate then what are the options? I drive a 5.7L V8 so I'm not an alternative energy fanboy but I do think we need to have an honest conversation about this topic as a society without the political and anti-regulation BS. I'm not saying that's even possible at this point but some of us just want to know what is really going on so one way or the other we can make an informed decision.
Remember that science (and finance) use the term "relevant range". Longer time periods are useful, but science determines time range appropriate for a given topic.
But it is. I can't do it because it's obvious that doing so could cause you harm within a short period of time (days, weeks or months). Conversely I can burn leaves where the smoke may move across your property and might cause you to cough, but I'm not causing permanent harm because the air pollution generated by the burning of leaves is a temporary event so you and society are "ok" with that. Conversely if I built a trash incinerator next door and let the emissions blow across your property 24/7 there is zero doubt that you'd care about that.
The reason why you don't care is that unlike being exposed to an immediate harm you can't conceptualize a potential harm which may occur decades if not hundreds of years into the future. The overwhelming majority of the population isn't wired to care because human beings evolved to have comparatively short time preferences (i.e. buying cigarettes' today vs saving that money to buy a car X years from now).
This inability to conceptualize and have empathy over a potential future harm causes you to interpret the prohibition of an act as a loss of freedom. We all have our own limits with regards to how far out we're willing to go.
We sure should, however we cannot control other countries and even more so, we are rewording other countries like China by shifting our production base there.
US has managed to reduce Co2 by quite a lot over the decades, so it's not like our V8 are the main problem like it is being oftentimes portrayed.
Here is a global outlook. It's clearly on a steady incline, but so is the population growth. I would say this graph is much flatter then the population growth chart, so we are managing quite well IMO.
China, India and other developing nation should now be on the hook to shoulder this burden, not US IMO.
There it is again, "potential" "could"
You are right about one thing, we are who we vote for and we all know which side I am on.
No matter what anyone posts in here, no amount of money spent in the US, no matter how much you drive the population into poverty is going to change the temperature of the earth. No matter how many theories, no matter how many "potential" no matter how many "could" words are used, it's all point less. The only one who benefits are the cult leaders you vote for. "Immediate harm" is proven. You are forecasting "potential" harm and completely disregarding the real financial harm caused by hysteria with zero proof the cost is worth the "potential" harm. HUGE difference.
The voting booth will determine how much of the family budget and livelyhood is sacrificed for those words "potential" and "could"
I said I would not respond but ok, this is my one last one to you. I cant accept your posts about allowing raw sewage and smoke onto my property anything remotely relevant. I can see our discussion will go nowhere and (I dont care) *LOL*
Who cares? I dont, earth will always survive, earth will always adjust. Let the sea level rise as they are going to whether or not the country bankrupts you into believing government can prevent it or not. I do not care because I know I am "potentially" correct.
Please do not tell me why I "dont care" The reason I dont care is I can see much further than you.
Last edited:
I want to try a different approach, I'm just curious to see what folks think of this situation.
Let's say you live in a slightly rural area and have a couple of neighbors starts burning their trash in a pile instead of paying a company or the city garbage to pick it up (in this situation city garbage collection is not mandatory, yet.) All good, burning trash is a 'norm' in the community but they start burning really toxic trash like rubber, plastic, aluminum cans, nails, etc. 75% of the neighbors are upwind of it and don't care of it while the other 25% of the community is downwind of them and starts complaining of the smell and hard breathing. Because of these events, the township eventually mandates that everybody has to pay for garbage collection because of this. Do you think this is a breach of freedom for the neighbors that burn their toxic waste/didn't complain to the township that they now have to pay for city garbage collection? (For this scenario, there is no company getting rich off the garbage collection dues.)
*Edited for grammatical errors and clarification.
Last edited:
Interestingly, more than 100 years ago, my grandfather (as a child) used to walk on the ice on Long Island Sound. These past winters did not even have lake ice near where he lived. Our lives are short, and we don't have first hand knowledge of the distant past. With that in mind...
As an amateur astronomer, I'm fascinated by orbital mechanics and other physical issues, and the associated effects, especially when it comes to the Earth. Some of you might find this rather interesting:
(polar alignment of ancient structures, by time period) (Hint, this indicates the North pole has moved, unrelated to magnetic shift) (it also explains why Greenland is covered in ice)
www.mariobuildreps.com
As an amateur astronomer, I'm fascinated by orbital mechanics and other physical issues, and the associated effects, especially when it comes to the Earth. Some of you might find this rather interesting:
(polar alignment of ancient structures, by time period) (Hint, this indicates the North pole has moved, unrelated to magnetic shift) (it also explains why Greenland is covered in ice)
Orientations of Pyramids and Temples Correlates With Ice Ages
Orientation patterns of more than 1,100 ancient pyramids and temples correlates with the temperature changes of the last series of glaciation cycles.
www.mariobuildreps.com
True, I did not take that into account. I think burning coal would be the closest thing to releasing the greenhouse gases we're mentioning. I don't think people would burn coal for waste though so unfortunately I don't think I can rope that into my scenario now.
Green credits= the beginning of a new currency?
There it is again, "potential" "could"
You are right about one thing, we are who we vote for and we all know which side I am on.
No matter what anyone posts in here, no amount of money spent in the US, no matter how much you drive the population into poverty is going to change the temperature of the earth. No matter how many theories, no matter how many "potential" no matter how many "could" words are used, it's all point less. The only one who benefits are the cult leaders you vote for. "Immediate harm" is proven. You are forecasting "potential" harm and completely disregarding the real financial harm caused by hysteria with zero proof the cost is worth the "potential" harm. HUGE difference.
The voting booth will determine how much of the family budget and livelyhood is sacrificed for those words "potential" and "could"
I said I would not respond but ok, this is my one last one to you. I cant accept your posts about allowing raw sewage and smoke onto my property anything remotely relevant. I can see our discussion will go nowhere and (I dont care) *LOL*
Who cares? I dont, earth will always survive, earth will always adjust. Let the sea level rise as they are going to whether or not the country bankrupts you into believing government can prevent it or not. I do not care because I know I am "potentially" correct.
Please do not tell me why I "dont care" The reason I dont care is I can see much further than you.
First you and I with absolute certainty don't know how climate will be impacted in the future. You're just using that to rationalize your position.
The financial harm is the cost of abating future harm but you know this. You pay a sewer bill because it costs money to treat your sewage which flows downstream to another community as well as treat incoming water from upstream communities. Since you realize an immediate benefit in that you pay up. It gets back to that time preference thing.
Btw. you absolutely can't see father than me because I know that within a few billion years life on earth will cease to exist due to the expansion of the sun.
Just remember, when it comes to voting, property rights are universal and are not a matter of convenience/affordability. Only hypocrites think that way.
I can answer this through my experience.
We went through this one time, one time only, one day. I remember it was a Sunday afternoon....
We live on 10+ acres, the closest neighbor is about 500' from our back porch through the woods. At the time, there were some renters in the house. We found out some real winners. Worse even, the adults were older (60's) raising their grandkids....
They were burning trash that day and I started smelling plastic/rubber/etc. The smoke was coming straight at our house. The wife and I were in the backyard, doing some work/etc. We had the windows open on the house. I started speaking very, very loudly towards the neighbor. I let them know in no uncertain terms what I though about them, their fire and what they were burning.
The fire didn't go out immediately, but they never burned anything again. They were gone about a year later after the owner was foreclosed on and their lease was up. I learned that Fannie Mae couldn't even entice them out with $10k in cash payment.
dnewton3
Staff member
Here are things I think we need to agree on, from a very high viewpoint:
- some people believe that "science" points to incontrovertible proof that humans are causing the majority of global climate change
- other people believe that "science" is biased by agendas, and can point to other data which contraverts the above
- "science" gets many things right
- "science gets many things wrong, as history has shown us repeatedly
- evidence suggests that the earth is coming into a warming period; we're coming out of the 5th ice age
- when earth comes out of an ice age, the climate warms incredibly fast (this has happend 4x before man ever walked the planet)
The reason I posted this video link was to show that very intelligent people can disagree with the majority concensus; it's inaccurate to say anyone who denies humans are the major cause of warming is just a baffoon. For any one credible point of one side of the debate, there is an equally interesting and compelling point heading elsewhere.
My greatest concern is that we are spending too much time trying to solve short-term issues. People are worried about the temps rising 1.5 degF. But if you study most any "global temp chart" covering history, you'll see that the Earth's temps have bottomed around 50F on average, to up around 75F. The ice ages are very short contrasted to the much longer warm periods. If you think a rise of 1.5 degF will lead to impending doom, what are you going to do when the global average temps rise 20 more degrees ???????
Again, look at this:
Arguing about who/what caused the perhaps a 1 deg rise is chicken feed ...
It's gonna get about 20 degrees warmer. The 5% relative rise mankind may be contributing is a pittance relative to the yet-to-be-experienced 20 degrees. Look at the very, very agressive rise in temps around 430M years ago, and also 260M years ago. After the dip bottoms out, there's a VERY SHARP (nearly verticle) rise in temps. And all that happened prior to any man-made global fossil fuel consumption.
Are we (mankind) causing a sharp rise in temps over the last 70 years? Perhaps so. But given the evidence of how the the Earth has experienced drastic temp rises previously, how can anyone say with certainty that the rise over the last 70 years was all human-caused???? Again - correlation does not assure causation. I do agree there is correlation present. I do not agree that causation is proven.
Let's agree that we cannot stop the rise, regardless of what caused it.
We need to quickly learn how to adapt to it, using the points I stated a few pages back.
.
- some people believe that "science" points to incontrovertible proof that humans are causing the majority of global climate change
- other people believe that "science" is biased by agendas, and can point to other data which contraverts the above
- "science" gets many things right
- "science gets many things wrong, as history has shown us repeatedly
- evidence suggests that the earth is coming into a warming period; we're coming out of the 5th ice age
- when earth comes out of an ice age, the climate warms incredibly fast (this has happend 4x before man ever walked the planet)
The reason I posted this video link was to show that very intelligent people can disagree with the majority concensus; it's inaccurate to say anyone who denies humans are the major cause of warming is just a baffoon. For any one credible point of one side of the debate, there is an equally interesting and compelling point heading elsewhere.
My greatest concern is that we are spending too much time trying to solve short-term issues. People are worried about the temps rising 1.5 degF. But if you study most any "global temp chart" covering history, you'll see that the Earth's temps have bottomed around 50F on average, to up around 75F. The ice ages are very short contrasted to the much longer warm periods. If you think a rise of 1.5 degF will lead to impending doom, what are you going to do when the global average temps rise 20 more degrees ???????
Again, look at this:
Arguing about who/what caused the perhaps a 1 deg rise is chicken feed ...
It's gonna get about 20 degrees warmer. The 5% relative rise mankind may be contributing is a pittance relative to the yet-to-be-experienced 20 degrees. Look at the very, very agressive rise in temps around 430M years ago, and also 260M years ago. After the dip bottoms out, there's a VERY SHARP (nearly verticle) rise in temps. And all that happened prior to any man-made global fossil fuel consumption.
Are we (mankind) causing a sharp rise in temps over the last 70 years? Perhaps so. But given the evidence of how the the Earth has experienced drastic temp rises previously, how can anyone say with certainty that the rise over the last 70 years was all human-caused???? Again - correlation does not assure causation. I do agree there is correlation present. I do not agree that causation is proven.
Let's agree that we cannot stop the rise, regardless of what caused it.
We need to quickly learn how to adapt to it, using the points I stated a few pages back.
.
Last edited:
Well, at one point in time most toxins were a potential threat to health. Some chemists or doctors were probably pretty sure toxin X wasn't good for people, and then did some investigation between people who were exposed and not exposed and proved toxin X was bad.
Now, when chemical Y is invented, we don't usually wait to see if its toxic to people, so some chemists and doctors predict that chemical Y is potentially bad , maybe run some tests on tissue samples or mice, and that's good enough to write up a MSDS so we can use chemical Y safely. The problem with global climate studies is that we have a sample size of one, and we can't mess it up too badly!
Also on the flip side, you or anyone doesn't know what the economic and social effects of greatly reducing CO2 emissions would be? You are predicting potential doom and gloom, but there is only 1 global economy and just like the climate, its hard to model to predict the future.
Cooling theories of the 1970s were based on particulate air pollution and the expected growth thereof. Around the same time, studies began to demonstrate that particulates themselves are immediately dangerous to life and health, and there was action taken to clean it up. Thus any particulate based cooling theories no longer applied to the situation.
Anyone citing the existence of cooling theories as evidence that science wrong is either trying to deceive you, or very bad at science.
Anyone citing the existence of cooling theories as evidence that science wrong is either trying to deceive you, or very bad at science.
Last edited:
It's amazing that our elected 'leaders' would sign onto a deal like the Paris Accords that exempted the 2 biggest carbon producers (China and India).....one of whom is our main geopolitical adversary. It makes me wonder who is getting paid off?
Sometimes you have to get it wrong to figure out what is right. Certainly, individuals/groups/papers are wrong but I can not think of a single case in modern times where an entire discipline was wrong for multiple decades. That is essentially the claim - thousands if not tens of thousands of climate scientists decade after decade and new paper after new paper are not just heading in the right direction but a little off course, but totally wrong. They are claiming one thing while the truth is exactly the opposite.
I find that hard to believe and short of me going back to school I'm hardly in a position to disagree.
China and India have both signed the Paris agreement. The only ones getting paid off are the executive at Fox News who knowingly lie about this stuff.
Q&A: What does China’s new Paris Agreement pledge mean for climate change? - Carbon Brief
The headline targets in China’s updated NDC are pledges to reach a peak in CO2 emissions before 2030 and achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060.
www.carbonbrief.org
Clearing The Air - The U.S., India, China And The Paris Agreement
Perspectives on the U.S., China, India and the Paris Agreement
www.forbes.com
List of Parties that signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April
The Paris Agreement will be open for signature on 22 April and will remain open for signature for one year.
www.un.org
Last edited:
- Status