Climate continues to change.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see we're talking about weather again and not climate, unless it advances your argument.
But since we're talking weather, I noticed it was a bitter cold October where I used to live on the eastern slope of the Rockies, with highs a lot of days in the low 40s and a couple of days not even reaching the teens.
October was generally one of the nicest months. Don't remember ever living through a month like that when I was there.
But this stuff happens. When I lived up there, folks talked about the winter of 1948-49. Nothing new weather-wise.

You... you don't... remember... October... being cold... in the Rocky Mountains?

The tourism board for the national parks has given snow warnings in October since I've been alive. The fuck are you talking about? Like this has nothing to do with climate change, really, it's just fucking cold in October in places like Colorado. The fucking ski parks open in October.

Derp Derp I'm OJ and Ima go to Elkfest and not bring fucking winter clothes because I hate myself.
 
Same old arguments.

"nothing can be done!"

"Earth got warm millions of years ago!"

"But...but... SUN!"

Burning trillions of pounds of carbon does nothing.

OK...
 
Same old arguments.

"nothing can be done!"

"Earth got warm millions of years ago!"

"But...but... SUN!"

Burning trillions of pounds of carbon does nothing.

OK...

You keep complaining about the carbon but you refuse to do anything about it.

And the only attempts to DO anything are destined to fail because they're idiotic.
 

"Global Warming For The Two Cultures"
An Address by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.


"...At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves. The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather. In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.

This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster. Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.2 Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing.3 In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.

Conclusion
So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’."



-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences



 
This is a perfect example of right wing ideals. I will be dead...it dont matter. The reason they feel like this, is their entire family has abandoned them. Fuck my family. Fuck my kids. Fuck my grandkids. What they have to deal with wont bother me s bit. I will be dead.

Fuck it . Eat drink and be Merry. The left will give you every thing to survive. Just stop and listen . They know all about the history of the earth. Ask them they can change it to their needs.
 
Answers

Fuck it . Eat drink and be Merry. The left will give you every thing to survive. Just stop and listen . They know all about the history of the earth. Ask them they can change it to their needs.


Or maybe the poles are flip flopping. North going south? south going north? Just saying
 
I see we're talking about weather again and not climate, unless it advances your argument.
But since we're talking weather, I noticed it was a bitter cold October where I used to live on the eastern slope of the Rockies, with highs a lot of days in the low 40s and a couple of days not even reaching the teens.
October was generally one of the nicest months. Don't remember ever living through a month like that when I was there.
But this stuff happens. When I lived up there, folks talked about the winter of 1948-49. Nothing new weather-wise.

We live in Lake Wobegone, where all the months are above average.
Make up your mind.
 
Doing less also helps.

No, it just pushes the problem (assuming real) to our great grandkids rather than our grandkids.

Doing less is pointless. Stop in your tracks or continue as you are (which is what all of you A R E doing).

Fish or cut bait.
 
Renewables, environmental and efficiency industries have grown 3x faster than the fossil fuel industry. In 2016, these green industries generated 1.3 trillion in revenue and employed 9.5 million. This is 10x the revenue of fossil fuel industry which received Govt subsides of 648 billion in 2015 alone. Since 2013, these industries have had 20% growth resulting in 7.87 trillion worldwide. I would love to give more recent numbers, but the present administration stopped collecting it. What we can do, is look and see how those companies that generated that revenue in 2016, are doing today individually. Wanna take some bets?

Some people say we are doing nothing. But facts, say differently.
 
No, it just pushes the problem (assuming real) to our great grandkids rather than our grandkids.

Doing less is pointless. Stop in your tracks or continue as you are (which is what all of you A R E doing).

Fish or cut bait.
Pollute less. Consume less. Subsidize harmful industries less.
 
Pollute less. Consume less. Subsidize harmful industries less.

Make false promises to the coal industry a little less. Stop gutting the environmental protections that were working less

Amazing what can happen if you take the first step
 
I can't speak for you, of course, but I do those things.

Not because I think I'm saving the world, but because it is the conservative thing to do.

You support subsidizing harmful industries less? When was the last time you wrote your Congressman saying so? Talk is cheap on an anonymous porn board.
 
You support subsidizing harmful industries less? When was the last time you wrote your Congressman saying so? Talk is cheap on an anonymous porn board.

While I was primarily speaking on the other two points, I disagree on the approaches to dealing with those industries that you believe are harmful.

Right now, it is unquestionable that the energy demands of our country (and 6 or 8 other top consumers) cannot possibly be met using alternative energy, certainly not now and probably not ever.

Develop nuclear alternatives and provide the fixed infrastructure energy consumers using that. Mobile infrastructure that isn't appropriately served with battery technology obviously has to stay with fossil fuels but it's a fraction of our energy needs.

Doing so goes far further to abate the CO/CO2 issues you're so concerned with and does it WITHOUT destroying the environment as is happening with solar technologies today.

If nuclear sourced electricity is widely available at lower costs that fossil fuel generated electricity, then what happens to the coal and nat gas industries? I leave the answer as an exercise for the class.
 
Pollute less. Consume less. Subsidize harmful industries less.

Yes, you should.

You should begin your search for a Gen II Prius so your actions on so-called climate change would begin to have some integrity with your words.
 
I lived next to the Davis Besse nuclear plant growing up. Leak after leak until they finally shut it down. I have no problem building new plants... as long as they are in your backyard this time. Those that want them...should house them. Then you get a taste of what others had to deal with. Talk is cheap

Argue for your limitations and so they shall be yours.

According to the EIA...19% of the US energy came from renewable sources in 2019. Just imagine what it would be without the the naysayers fighting legislative advances every step of the way. 40%...50%. Tell me again...how 40% is not better than 19%?
 


What does electricity cost in Germany ?




Anybody who claims that wind or solar-generated electricity is less expensive than current existing forms of baseload electricity generation has a big problem.

Germany already conducted the experiment. The results are there for anybody to see.


https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/clip_image004_thumb-2.jpg


They aren't claiming solar and wind are CHEAPER, just BETTER!

Actually some of them might believe it is cheaper because of the government subsidizing, but when that peters out it's more expensive and more damaging to the environment. Although the regions that will be most blighted are in Asia, so I guess it doesn't matter to many people on THIS forum.
 
Yes, you should.

You should begin your search for a Gen II Prius so your actions on so-called climate change would begin to have some integrity with your words.
I don't need a ten-year-old car, thanks.
 
They aren't claiming solar and wind are CHEAPER, just BETTER!

Actually some of them might believe it is cheaper because of the government subsidizing, but when that peters out it's more expensive and more damaging to the environment. Although the regions that will be most blighted are in Asia, so I guess it doesn't matter to many people on THIS forum.
Solar and wind infrastructure has a much higher ROI than any fossil fuel.
 
Solar and wind infrastructure has a much higher ROI than any fossil fuel.

Probably not, but regardless it can't generate enough energy to support a modern, industrial civilization. It just can't. At least not with the technology we will have for the next few hundred years.

And it will devastate the environment in the process. Where do you think those rare earths for the panels and batteries come from? Strip mines.

But the strip mines aren't in OUR backyards, so I guess that's ok by you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top