Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Recommended Posts

Jeez, between all the science and all the opinions, it's hard to know who to believe when it comes to the subject of climate change. Would you believe Exxon's own scientific assessment of the climatic effects of burning fossil fuels? Well, here it is: what Exxon knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. Here's part one of a Pulitzer Prize winning series from Inside Climate News. Follow the links at the end of part one for the rest of the series, which includes the full report by Exxon's own research scientists and their remarkably accurate predictions made four decades ago. You may also discover how your own opinion on this subject was formed by Exxon's campaign of denialistic propaganda.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I graduated, in 1959 with a degree in Geology and Geograpy, we had learned & understood that the planet would be in grave trouble, probably a 'tipping point', when the average temperature increased by about three degrees.  That has happened, and we are there. It is now a do or die scenario and there is no sense in arguing the point.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Take out the 'lie' and you are B---f.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RVGRINGO said:

When I graduated, in 1959 with a degree in Geology and Geograpy, we had learned & understood that the planet would be in grave trouble, probably a 'tipping point', when the average temperature increased by about three degrees.  That has happened, and we are there. It is now a do or die scenario and there is no sense in arguing the point.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Take out the 'lie' and you are B---f.

Uh, no RV, sorry.

Quote

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.

Now just what do you intend to do about this?  Cars are the biggest single source of CO2.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/07/05/car-ownership-may-be-down-in-the-u-s-but-its-soaring-globally/

Car ownership in Jalisco alone has increased by one million just since we moved here and this high growth rate is mirrored in all Mexico's major cities.  Car ownership in China is doubling in less than 5 years.  

Electric cars?  Not so fast.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

Quote

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a newgas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

Coal fired power plants?

Quote
The. As of 2016, China had the highest installed capacity from its coal power plants, amounting to 880 GW in total. The United States came in a distant second with over 300 GW of coal power plant capacity, followed by India at about 170 GW.
Quote
Coal Usage By Country
  • China. Roughly 70% of the energy consumed in China is obtained from coal, making it one of the most coal-reliant countries in the world. ...
  • India. India is the world's second-largest producer of coal, with 692.4 million tons produced yearly. ...
  • United States. ...
  • Australia. ...
  • Indonesia. ...
  • 15 Countries Most Dependent On Coal For Energy.
Nov 5, 2018

Wind and solar realistic substitutes?

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/

Maybe y'all have the wrong bogeyman.

Image result for pogo we have met the enemy and he is us (1972)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from MC: According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.

This did not seem right to me so I looked it up and discovered that it is incorrect. According to the NASA website and the GISS charts available there, the average temperature over land has risen about 1.5  degree Celsius since 1880 and about 1 degree Celsius over land and ocean combined since 1880. The 0.8 C figure seems to correspond to a base period of 1951-1980, and uses only the combined land and ocean data in order to cherry-pick the data. What was your source for this information? You may want to look it up for yourself.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the reference.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Another reference:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Still another:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/09/07/exactly-how-much-has-the-earth-warmed-and-does-it-matter/#114a8eb55c22

Quote

The latest assessment (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refers to a baseline of 1850–1900. This is a practical choice, since it includes the period of most reliable temperature records and less than 3% of total fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions had occurred by that time.

 

 

 

Presumably, this is the baseline intended by UNFCCC since they describe the IPCC reports as “the most credible sources of scientific information on climate change” and 1850–1900 is also referenced in the UNFCCC’s Structured Expert Dialogue. However, other definitions of pre-industrial are used within the IPCC reports. For example, both “before 1850" and 1750 were used in the Working Group 1 report.

The primary argument of Schurer, et al. for using earlier time periods is that some human-caused warming may have taken place earlier, so pre-industrial should be defined as before 1850. Because temperature was lower for several centuries prior to 1850, their earlier baseline yields the additional two tenths of warming.

If the UNFCCC actually intended 1850–1900 as the base period, choosing an earlier interval is moving the goalposts. In addition, it raises the question of choosing the earlier period and determining the temperature of the new baseline.

The imprecision of pre-1850 temperature reconstructions

Since temperature measurements are sparse before 1850, temperature must be estimated by proxies, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and pollens. These have known inaccuracies and do not agree. The graph below shows reconstructions from 11 different proxies. Each colored curve is a different reconstruction.

This may account for the difference.  It is really reaching to assume there was carbon contribution of any real significance prior to the industrial age and it is pretty unlikely the measurements from that time were very accurate either.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to ponder.  Take note of that last question, it is a good one:

Quote

...China is binge building new coal-fired energy plants. According to Coalswarm, an environmental advocacy group, “China is now on track to add coal-fired power equal to almost the total U.S. capacity.”

China’s goal to cap coal-fired electricity at 1,100 gigawatts is already half of the world’s total and nearly quadruple that of the United States.

By 2013, China was responsible for 28 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Global Carbon Project. The United States, whose share has been dropping, accounts for 15 percent while the European Union emits 10 percent and India 7 percent.

Since 2005, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons, the largest for any single country and about on par with the European Union’s 770 million decline. At the same time, China’s carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India’s grew by 1 billion metric tons.

Since we live on the same planet, what sense is there in making our economy jump through hoops to cut emissions while China’s and India’s carbon output more than exceeds our reductions?

https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-memo-aoc-china-building-coal-power-plants/

Good question.  And here's another:  If you really want to cut the growth of greenhouse gases, do you focus on the countries that are cutting theirs or the ones whose emissions are growing by leaps and bounds?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like two different parameters, one is based on surface temps, one is based on means.  Both from the same source.  For long term measurements, I would think the mean averages are more relevant.  In any case this is quibbling over different ways of looking at the same thing by the same people.  

Interesting explanation of the GISS here:  https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

Quote

Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?
A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates for sea surface temperatures are shown here.

Now how do you address the question in bold above?  That's the tough one.  Do you honestly feel all the folks in these developing nations are just suddenly going to stop wanting, and getting, the same things?  Do you honestly believe it is a good idea for the west to gut its economies while the new global mercantilist and imperialist gets to pile on the pollution?

I don't.  As noted above and which you are not addressing, short of going back to preindustrial times in the U.S. and Europe, and even though major reductions have already been accomplished, it is a drop in the bucket in the face of rapidly increasing carbon emissions from the developing world INCLUDING Mexico.

Who knows, maybe our cookies will be saved by a new Maunder minimum.  For certain they will not be saved by anything the politicians can come up with.  It is a mystery to me how anyone could look at the gross failure of government in general to solve anything anywhere and conclude they are going to solve this.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ :

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. 

1736_world-of-agreement-2018.jpg.bfd4ed70372f913c6124eec9869b226c.jpg

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes temperatures have been rising, not fake news.

No, all the doomsday scenarios have not panned out as of yet.

Yes, the world economy that supports some 8 billion is based on fossil fuels including, most critically, the agriculture that feeds them.

No we can't begin to support this world population without fossil fuels.

Yes we can be more efficient but, like cutting the emissions of those countries that have already made big gains, this is s drop in the bucket compared to the developing world.

No, renewable energy technology can't begin to replace it.  Modern civilization is based on fossil fuels, including this area we live in, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  It is either this or a shift to nuclear energy, maybe someday fusion but for now only fission and its toxic byproducts are available.

Yes, the developed world's CO2 production is flattening out.

No, this is not true of the rest nor will it be.  They want what we have and they will not stop until they get it or we all die with the trying.

Yes, a warmer planet is a wetter planet.

No, CO2 is not poison at these concentrations it is enhanced plant food for the greenery that is the primary solar engine and source of life on this planet.

Yes, life thrived on this planet at far higher temperatures.  Ironically we are now living on the fossil energy stored during those times.

Now what?

I am reminded of the school science project when I was young.  You take a beaker of broth, a food bacteria love.  You seed the beaker with bacteria.  The bacteria multiply rapidly and thrive in the food rich environment, soon there is a huge population of bacteria.  One day, all the food is gone and the beaker is full of the wastes from the bacteria.

Very shortly the bacteria are gone, all dead.

"This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper."

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mexicans will survive the warming. They are out in the heat in sweatshirts and hoods. The rest of us have a hard tine going out in 95 degree humidity or 120 degrees in the dessert.

The smartest money man I listen to said if you live along any coast it is time to move. Property values are going to be falling. Right now insurance premiums are unaffordable in some areas. 

Even the the Midwest which might be considered safe are starting to get storms that park over an area and dump 10 inches of rain in a few hours. Significant flooding. Nobody is safe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mainecoons said:

Yes temperatures have been rising, not fake news.

No, all the doomsday scenarios have not panned out as of yet.

Yes, the world economy that supports some 8 billion is based on fossil fuels including, most critically, the agriculture that feeds them.

No we can't begin to support this world population without fossil fuels.

Yes we can be more efficient but, like cutting the emissions of those countries that have already made big gains, this is s drop in the bucket compared to the developing world.

No, renewable energy technology can't begin to replace it.  Modern civilization is based on fossil fuels, including this area we live in, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  It is either this or a shift to nuclear energy, maybe someday fusion but for now only fission and its toxic byproducts are available.

Yes, the developed world's CO2 production is flattening out.

No, this is not true of the rest nor will it be.  They want what we have and they will not stop until they get it or we all die with the trying.

Yes, a warmer planet is a wetter planet.

No, CO2 is not poison at these concentrations it is enhanced plant food for the greenery that is the primary solar engine and source of life on this planet.

Yes, life thrived on this planet at far higher temperatures.  Ironically we are now living on the fossil energy stored during those times.

Now what?

I am reminded of the school science project when I was young.  You take a beaker of broth, a food bacteria love.  You seed the beaker with bacteria.  The bacteria multiply rapidly and thrive in the food rich environment, soon there is a huge population of bacteria.  One day, all the food is gone and the beaker is full of the wastes from the bacteria.

Very shortly the bacteria are gone, all dead.

"This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper."

 

 

 

 

I'm reminded of the old adage: Children and ID10ts shouldn't see things half done. "Yes, life thrived on this planet at far higher temperatures.". Not human life. Never human life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure, ranting and raving and insulting from the true believers isn't going to fix anything.  Temperatures of much of the planet were quite tolerable for humans during the Jurassic had we already evolved.  Look it up.

Quote

The Jurassic period, which occurred 208 to 146 million years ago, marks the middle of the Mesozoic era, known as the age of dinosaurs. Pangaea, the giant land mass, began to break up and sea levels rose. Evidence indicates that temperatures on Earth were more equable in the Jurassic period than they are today. Temperate zones likely experienced a climate that was more like present-day subtropical and tropical climates. The absence of ice caps in the polar regions suggests that the climate in that area was temperate.

https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html

BTW Mark do you have a car and do you live in a modern home with electricity and running water?  Ready to give that up?

I'm not. I'd be willing to bet that neither are the vast majority of the of the true believers.  Talking the talk but not walking the walk and living in a fantasy that you'll solve this problem by wrecking the developed world. 

And Mark, children believe in fantasies and throw tantrums when they don't get their way.

:D

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure have a hard-on for non-sequitur and tu quoque fallacies, don't you? Whether I drive a car, or burn old car tires for heat, or over fish the ditch in my backyard, as is my wont, in no way distracts from, or diminishes the fact of, ACD. The evidence is there for all to see. You only have to want to see it, but I suspect that that outsized conservative amygdala prevents such adventures. Here's a hint: if want the facts regarding a subject, it's best to consult actual experts, generally refered to as scientists; not priests, politicians, or other liars, and certainly not pretty bleach-blonde bubble heads on Fox News.  Sure, you're happy in that fact-free way you have, but reality will out.

 

ETA: I'll post this here for the curious. I'll admit that I did not read all of it: I stopped when I realized that , yeah, the consensus is that planet is warming, and we're the cause.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First line of my post:

Quote

Yes temperatures have been rising, not fake news.

And Mark:

Quote

Ad Hominem Fallacy. When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. ... It's an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims.

You have yet to address any of the points I have made and continue to falsely claim I don't believe man has a hand in climate change.  Instead you declare you will go right on being part of the problem along with the rest of us.  And you seem rather self righteous about it.

Quote

Straw Man

It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman fallacy is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.

Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is. Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as “non-starters,” lifeless, truthless, and wholly unreliable. By comparison, one’s own position will look better for it. You can imagine how straw man fallacies and ad hominems can occur together, demonizing opponents and discrediting their views.

That kind of "argument" separates rational adults from ranting little kids and contributes nothing to the discussion.  Let us know when you want to have a grown up discussion around this topic, I'll be happy to participate.

Until then have a nice day.  :D

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with your "points" is that they are mostly sentence fragments which offer no conclusions, and seem to be designed to halt further exploration of the subject, to wit:  "No, CO2 is not poison at these concentrations...". This is true, but not the issue, is it? Digitalis is great for some heart ailments, but would you want foxglove in your salad?   What you dance over so fleetly is the fact, yes, fact, that the last time (about 3 million years ago) the planet saw CO2 concentrations in the 400 ppm range, though the average temperatures were only 2 - 3c above that of pre-industrialization, sea levels were 15 - 25 meters higher that what ours are now. The only difference is the rate at which the CO2, methane, etc is entering the atmosphere, and that rate is unprecedented even if you consider the Permian and K-T extinctions -  The Cambrian Explosion was a 20 million year process - the time frames here seems to escape some.  And, of course, there is the methane under the arctic ocean and the Siberian continental shelf that is already starting to vent, and the permafrost is melting, which will result in more CO2, but mostly methane - which is a worse green house gas than is CO2. We all know that, right? The oceans are expected to rise  6" to 12" by 2030. Something many of us will live to see. It will happen, or it will not, (most scientist accept that this is unavoidable.)  but the potential destructive force of just that that small rise will be considerable.   

See, it requires far more effort to offer up a satisfying refutation to the patch-work vomitous, such as what you gifted us here, than it does to put it on the plate to begin with. This is why many don't bother, leaving pages of disinformation going unchallenged. BTW, there's a name for your process; It's known as the Gish Gallop.  I'll leave it to you to find out why.

 

ETA: Please don't quote fallacy definitions at me, I'm quite familiar with them, and it suggests that you are not.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still arguing the straw man Mark.  Go find a mirror and argue with yourself in person.  :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In person? Really? I'm guessing that, like many, you don't read your posts.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep on telling you guys. You have got it all wrong. the only part of the world that counts is the greater Seattle Vancouver area.. And we have been setting record lows with snow like we have never seen before.  It's GLOBAL COOLING.

OK now you guys can attack me instead of each other :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, we will be about 13ºF above the normal average temperature for the tip of Texas, and being above normal seems to be the 'new normal' in much of the country, in spite of the 'Seattle anomoly'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RVGRINGO said:

Today, we will be about 13ºF above the normal average temperature for the tip of Texas, and being above normal seems to be the 'new normal' in much of the country, in spite of the 'Seattle anomoly'.

So, is that a new "record high", or has it been higher in the past? Everything is "relative" 

to the time it is happening, or has happened in the past. Just willing to bet that it has been higher in the past, and may be higher in the future, or not. Time will tell, no?

BTW, where we live in Texas, most of the weather records are from the 1920s, both cold and hot. Wonder what that means in reference to today?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...