|
|
10-14-2016, 11:29 PM
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Let's stay on point. Global cooling did not "hatch" earth day. The two things in 1969-70 were unrelated. The initial earth day was about a lot of environmental things. Global cooling wasn't one of them.
This is a brief piece on the beginning of earth day. http://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/
If your teacher decided to connect global cooling and earth day, he/she did that on her own. I was a bit older than you in 1970, and I'm certain global cooling never came up when we were planning earth day at my school. And I'll stick by my recollection that the global cooling debacle mainly took hold after the Newsweek article in 1975, despite random references prior to that date, which is still irrelevant to the start of earth day.
My reaction is primarily based on the fact that an article that has been disavowed by the scientists on which it was based because the analysis was wrong, and which even the author said it is memorable only for being fodder for the right to make fun of science, still comes up regularly, usually out of context.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:00 AM
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Beaverdam Virginia
Posts: 12,652
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Let's stay on point. Global cooling did not "hatch" earth day. The two things in 1969-70 were unrelated. The initial earth day was about a lot of environmental things. Global cooling wasn't one of them.
This is a brief piece on the beginning of earth day. http://www.earthday.org/about/the-history-of-earth-day/
If your teacher decided to connect global cooling and earth day, he/she did that on her own. I was a bit older than you in 1970, and I'm certain global cooling never came up when we were planning earth day at my school. And I'll stick by my recollection that the global cooling debacle mainly took hold after the Newsweek article in 1975, despite random references prior to that date, which is still irrelevant to the start of earth day.
My reaction is primarily based on the fact that an article that has been disavowed by the scientists on which it was based because the analysis was wrong, and which even the author said it is memorable only for being fodder for the right to make fun of science, still comes up regularly, usually out of context.
|
The same thing will happen 75 years from now with global warming or climate change, when none of the predictions of 15 feet sea rises and the extinction of various species of animals occurs.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:02 AM
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,604
|
We need a Wikileaks of the communications on global warming.
We already know the mainstream media will lie, withhold information, work with government officials etc.. in order to advance left wing politics.
We already know that politicians and the institutions of government can't be trusted at all.
I think it would be beneficial to see the private conversations between the mainstream media, government and government institutions, activists, and scientists.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 10:07 AM
|
#64
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
We already know the alt right has compromised the SCIENCE on AGW.
The reason I stopped posting regularly on this subject is ultimately the data must be sourced from creditable sources, and whenever I use creditable sources ----among dozens and dozens of real governmental, private, scholastic and peer reviewed scientifically accurate sources----climate skeptics here will cite absurd non-scientific, non-rational contrarian alt right bogus sources like Anthony Watts or breitbart.com and all their their derivative.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 10:22 AM
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Info Wars is an example of alt right absolute bullshit. The kind of cringe worthy stuff quoted by "skeptics". Anthony watts is only slightly better.
Quote:
https://climatecrocks.com/
The video from 2010 is relevant to the current debate because it, featured clips from Trump crush “Obama is a demon” Alex Jones, who was already an internet star focusing on right wing conspiracies and climate denial.
It’s clear with the benefit of hindsight that today’s “alt-right” crypto fascist faction of the Republican party was birthed, at least in part, in the fossil fuel funded fever swamps of climate change denial.
|
[YT="Denial"]/LMA9D-ZWwrg[/YT]
Last edited by hcap; 10-15-2016 at 10:26 AM.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 11:56 AM
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
We need a Wikileaks of the communications on global warming.
We already know the mainstream media will lie, withhold information, work with government officials etc.. in order to advance left wing politics.
We already know that politicians and the institutions of government can't be trusted at all.
I think it would be beneficial to see the private conversations between the mainstream media, government and government institutions, activists, and scientists.
|
don't need em. there has already been numerous emails leaked showing they have been cooking the books.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 12:22 PM
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Houston Tx.
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Info Wars is an example of alt right absolute bullshit. The kind of cringe worthy stuff quoted by "skeptics". Anthony watts is only slightly better.
|
There are 7.12 billion people on Earth. They all create pollution/global warming.
The only way to significantly reduce the human part of global warming is to get rid of a large part of the population. There are approximately 80 million republicans in the USA. That's only 1.1 percent of the worlds people.
Who you get rid of after you have eliminated the republicans?
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 01:10 PM
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
don't need em. there has already been numerous emails leaked showing they have been cooking the books.
|
If this was complicated science - like you couldn't measure temperature change with a thermometer, a tool that has been reliable since 1700, or you couldn't accurately measure sea level rise, or you couldn't use a camera, another reliable tool for a couple hundred years, to view the change in the size of the polar ice caps, or you couldn't document the retreating glaciers in what will soon be the park formally known as Glacier, or you couldn't see the water consuming beach in the Maldives or the Seychelles, or a first year chemistry student didn't know exactly how CO2 acts to trap heat in the atmosphere - then perhaps the discussion about climate change would be different. The one thing that is worth arguing about is the predictive accuracy of the models. The assumptions you make and the algorithms you construct will produce different results, but there isn't a model out there that says things will get better if nothing changes. You can argue about degree. You can't argue about direction.
The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. Even the Koch brothers have given up on this one. The question is just how bad will things get if we do nothing. And it is likely we will never know the answer to that one because doing nothing doesn't seem to be working out so well. In 75 years if we are talking about how all the dire predictions didn't come true, it is more likely it will be because things changed.
The other question is, other than ice melting and the sea level rising, and ocean currents changing, how adaptable would we be? If the polar ice caps melted, most of NJ and Florida would be under water, and some might be willing to make that trade off (take that in the tongue in cheek spirit in which it was meant).
In 50 years we will have self-driving cars (wait for the Hollywood version of how that works out), although they still won't fly, we will have perfected 24/7 solar (which we are within spitting distance of today), and we will have perfected small, modular nuclear generators (that's zero greenhouse gas and no difference in electricity reliability).
The point is that life will go on and no one will notice what changed. People in the regulatory business know the best strategies are the ones that people don't realize they are implementing. Anyone thought about the catalytic converter on your car lately? Didn't think so, but automobile emissions are 5% of what they were in the 60's. And performance is great. Anyone think about the stage 2 vapor recovery system on gas pumps in states like CA or NJ to name a couple? Nope. Gas go in car, car keep going. And controls on power plants seem to bother most people not at all because they never had to change their behavior. Does your new 95% efficient furnace bother you? Do you wish you had the old 75% efficient one so you could be spending more money to stay as warm? Didn't think so. In so many ways technology advances occur and nobody notices because life looks just about the same.
If in 75 years people say, none of those dire predictions came true, nobody, even the climate scientists, will be the slightest bit upset. But it is far more likely that if they do, it will be because we responded to the messages we got today. Yeah, it sucks for the coal miners and I hope we figure out how to improve their situation, but the answer isn't to save coal miner jobs at the expense of the environment. We'll deal with the problem because eventually it will become far easier to deal with it than not deal with it.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 02:20 PM
|
#70
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
If this was complicated science - like you couldn't measure temperature change with a thermometer, a tool that has been reliable since 1700, or you couldn't accurately measure sea level rise, or you couldn't use a camera, another reliable tool for a couple hundred years, to view the change in the size of the polar ice caps, or you couldn't document the retreating glaciers in what will soon be the park formally known as Glacier, or you couldn't see the water consuming beach in the Maldives or the Seychelles, or a first year chemistry student didn't know exactly how CO2 acts to trap heat in the atmosphere - then perhaps the discussion about climate change would be different. The one thing that is worth arguing about is the predictive accuracy of the models. The assumptions you make and the algorithms you construct will produce different results, but there isn't a model out there that says things will get better if nothing changes. You can argue about degree. You can't argue about direction.
The question isn't whether climate change is real or not. Even the Koch brothers have given up on this one. The question is just how bad will things get if we do nothing. And it is likely we will never know the answer to that one because doing nothing doesn't seem to be working out so well. In 75 years if we are talking about how all the dire predictions didn't come true, it is more likely it will be because things changed.
The other question is, other than ice melting and the sea level rising, and ocean currents changing, how adaptable would we be? If the polar ice caps melted, most of NJ and Florida would be under water, and some might be willing to make that trade off (take that in the tongue in cheek spirit in which it was meant).
In 50 years we will have self-driving cars (wait for the Hollywood version of how that works out), although they still won't fly, we will have perfected 24/7 solar (which we are within spitting distance of today), and we will have perfected small, modular nuclear generators (that's zero greenhouse gas and no difference in electricity reliability).
The point is that life will go on and no one will notice what changed. People in the regulatory business know the best strategies are the ones that people don't realize they are implementing. Anyone thought about the catalytic converter on your car lately? Didn't think so, but automobile emissions are 5% of what they were in the 60's. And performance is great. Anyone think about the stage 2 vapor recovery system on gas pumps in states like CA or NJ to name a couple? Nope. Gas go in car, car keep going. And controls on power plants seem to bother most people not at all because they never had to change their behavior. Does your new 95% efficient furnace bother you? Do you wish you had the old 75% efficient one so you could be spending more money to stay as warm? Didn't think so. In so many ways technology advances occur and nobody notices because life looks just about the same.
If in 75 years people say, none of those dire predictions came true, nobody, even the climate scientists, will be the slightest bit upset. But it is far more likely that if they do, it will be because we responded to the messages we got today. Yeah, it sucks for the coal miners and I hope we figure out how to improve their situation, but the answer isn't to save coal miner jobs at the expense of the environment. We'll deal with the problem because eventually it will become far easier to deal with it than not deal with it.
|
So once again the ideal temperature of the earth is what again?
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 03:59 PM
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
So once again the ideal temperature of the earth is what again?
|
It depends on how much change represents too much change. It's like asking, how much money is enough? Like I said, if NJ and FL being under water sounds like a winner, you should be rooting for much hotter. On the other hand, if you live in FL and you are worried about the intensity of hurricanes, perhaps a cooler ocean sounds better.
I can think of a lot of questions using the word "ideal" where there is no single answer.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 04:57 PM
|
#72
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
It depends on how much change represents too much change. It's like asking, how much money is enough? Like I said, if NJ and FL being under water sounds like a winner, you should be rooting for much hotter. On the other hand, if you live in FL and you are worried about the intensity of hurricanes, perhaps a cooler ocean sounds better.
I can think of a lot of questions using the word "ideal" where there is no single answer.
|
so what have the alarmists determined to be too much?
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 05:23 PM
|
#73
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,810
|
Double talk.
There is no ideal temperature.
It will be what it will be.
And it will hotter than that and colder than that.
Been that way a lot longer than 1880.....even longer than 1879.
btw, hcap, do you still think an eclipse is because we angered the gods and they took away our sunlight?
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 05:48 PM
|
#74
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
so what have the alarmists determined to be too much?
|
The scientists will tell you what changes will occur under various scenarios. As I've said on a number of occasions, science informs policy. It's too much when the people responsible for policy say it's too much.
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 05:59 PM
|
#75
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,810
|
Well, now there is nice proper little lemming reply.
They tell what is good for you and you snap to attention?
What else do they tell you, how much coffee is enough for you?
How much soda you can have? How much money is too much to have?
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|