Climate change redux

[sportbikerider78]

Thread segment moved from wood shed

Yes, climate change is definitely taking it's toll. There were 266 in 1982. In 2009 there were 184.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/glaciers.htm
The difference between 1936 and now for the Anderson glacier is sobering.

Localized weather patterns are not global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it. Snow builds glaciers. There has even been plenty of proof that warmer weather increases snowpack in high peaks.
You don't always get the most snow in the coldest weather and the least snow in the warmer weather. This is why the glaciers in Asia are growing and not shrinking.

I can't tell you how many times I have been hiking on a glacier in a high peak in June and it starts to snow. 80F in town. Freezing on a peak. Mountains create their own localized weather.

For all we know, these glaciers have been receding forever in NA. After all, glaciers used to cover the entire Appalachian mountains.

 

[begreen]

Not a local phenomenon. Global glacier mass balance is in serious decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Glaciers in Asia - Himalayas are in serious decline. When they are gone so are the rivers that nourish millions of people.

 

[sportbikerider78]

This is a very interesting (long)read on the how the climate has changed in the past 11,000 years, which included ice ages and periods of warming and cooling. Even in the last 2000 years there have been large climate shifts across the globe.

If nothing else is read, look at the graphs of temperature and how there have been 4 major climate periods. Very interesting stuff and rarely discussed in this day of "the sky is falling because of man made climate change".

http://dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm

 

[begreen]

True dat, and Greenland was once ice free, 1.25 million years ago and there have been multiple ice age cycles. Climate change is normal. A dramatic 200 yr. rise in CO2 to levels well above previous peaks, not so normal. The earth's systems move slowly. It will recover, eventually, with or without us.

 

[bfitz3]

Vegas has "without" taking it at 4000 to 1.

 

[sportbikerider78]

True dat, and Greenland was once ice free, 1.25 million years ago and there have been multiple ice age cycles. Climate change is normal. A dramatic 200 yr. rise in CO2 to levels well above previous peaks, not so normal. The earth's systems move slowly. It will recover, eventually, with or without us.

View attachment 182865

I know we are off track..but I love these conversations. I like being challenged and I think in todays (you hurt my feelings) culture..we don't get enough real discussion.

Yes. Interesting to note how much the CO2 increased before man drove cars or had power plants.

Temperatures vary greatly for many reasons...including solar activity. It is very easy to punch holes in the argument that more CO2 = increased temperatures because the data just doesn't add up to when we were or were not creating the most CO2.


Anyone remember the cold winters of the 80's? I sure do as a child. That was after a prolonged period (35 yrs) of huge CO2 output.

Even if it can be assumed that the chart you posted is 100% accurate in terms of testing CO2 in the atmosphere thousands of years ago, it indicates an increase from about ~.0275% to ~ .0385%. That is saying that our increases in temperature are due to a change in CO2 in the atmosphere of .011%.

 

[bfitz3]

The science has become irrefutable and runs across many fields. Saying something to the effect of "things change so we don't need to worry about change" is as ignorant as saying "I'm going to die someday, so I'll let the train run over me now."

There is NO credible debate that anthropogenic global warming is real. The debate is only about the extent to which it is occurring.

Seriously... If you can refute the science that has been produced, please do. I'll buy your tickets for you and your family to attend the ceremony for your Nobel prizes.

 

[bfitz3]

Since we all like trees... https://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

 

[sportbikerider78]

The science has become irrefutable and runs across many fields. Saying something to the effect of "things change so we don't need to worry about change" is as ignorant as saying "I'm going to die someday, so I'll let the train run over me now."

There is NO credible debate that anthropogenic global warming is real. The debate is only about the extent to which it is occurring.

Seriously... If you can refute the science that has been produced, please do. I'll buy your tickets for you and your family to attend the ceremony for your Nobel prizes.

I'm confused by your post. You say AGW is not real, but seem to defend it.

I don't think many can say the earth is not warming, even though even NASA has manipulated data, the question is why...and how much is in our control.

I could care less what people believe. The question is how does this translate into policy. If we don't know how much contribution we are making to the warming of the earth (or if we are at all), how do we know what policies to make..and if that will have an effect on the climate?

 

[bfitz3]

Change "that" to "whether" ...credible debate whether AGW is real. We all typo...

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (verifiable with HS level experiment) that we have been dumping into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates on top of natural sources. An increase of 0.011% is disingenuous. An increase from ~280ppm to over 400ppm is a 43% increase and is clearly attributable to the industrial revolution. Aside fromAGW, such an increase also is acidifying the oceans (which should scare the bejezzus out of you) and has been shown to decrease the protein levels of pollen (messing with plant reproductive systems is also very scary!) how much evidence do we need to collect to know we are doing harm to the biology that allows us to live? Once we know we are doing harm, should we call for study after study or just stop contributing to the problem?

The impact of CO2 is very real and measurable. Yes, 100's of ppm are significant, considering the chemistry that comes with CO2. The long term implications can be guessed at through models and debated, often at the level of the People's Front of Judaea v. Judean People's Front level. I like to think humanity is smarter than that. Rather than debating how long we have to get off the tracks, why don't we just get off them? Frankly, pursuing a solution with existing technologies will be good for our economy, regardless.

 

[velvetfoot]

Hey sportbiker. These guys, and their elected globalists, UN commissions, and the like are all marching to the same socialist beat. There's no changing them with facts. It doesn't pay to argue with them. A bogus hockey stick was the lame excuse used for decarbonization and the trillions of dollars to be needlessly spent and redistributed. Now it has a political/economic inertia with money its driving force with no real regard for science. Carbon Dioxide is our friend. Disgusting.
(My last post on this)

 

[7acres]

The thing I'm always conflicted about is the fact that trees consume carbon dioxide. Wouldn't the trees happily offset a CO2 increase?

 

[woodgeek]

Carbon Dioxide is our friend.

More CO2 is indeed good for (most) land plants. But the pH of seawater is tied to the concentration of CO2....more CO2 means more acidic oceans.....is it alright if land forests and crops were 'ok', but all the coral reefs die?

The thing I'm always conflicted about is the fact that trees consume carbon dioxide. Wouldn't the trees happily offset a CO2 increase?

They do. In the ice cores they can see a global CO2 dip after each of the great plagues of the middle ages....when land cleared for farms returned to forest. If there were a few extra continents of grassland lying around that we could convert to forest....problem solved.

 

[jharkin]

Hey sportbiker. These guys, and their elected globalists, UN commissions, and the like are all marching to the same socialist beat. There's no changing them with facts. It doesn't pay to argue with them. A bogus hockey stick was the lame excuse used for decarbonization and the trillions of dollars to be needlessly spent and redistributed. Now it has a political/economic inertia with money its driving force with no real regard for science. Carbon Dioxide is our friend. Disgusting.
(My last post on this)

Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as motivation.


Zzzzz.... Zzzzzzz... . Are we really going to have this childish argument again? please.....

 

[blades]

When the warming alarmests factor in all the seismic activity then I will listen to them. so many have conveniently forgot to include, one big volcanic boom puts out more co2 and the like than all of mankinds entire history .
currently there has been a pretty good up tic in seismic activity- some of which have caused major changes to the ocean currents which have a tremendous effect on given area ( yep those bubbling cauldrons under the sea surface likely have more to do with the ph of the oceans than man does)

But hey can't bilk any money out that, now can we?

 

[Ashful]

Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as motivation.

Maybe we can blame our political system, as much as anything else. As long as the noble effort of reducing our impact on climate change is tied to the same party as wealth re-distribution, you're going to continue to see resistance from those with the most ability to affect change.

 

[jharkin]

When the warming alarmests factor in all the seismic activity then I will listen to them. so many have conveniently forgot to include, one big volcanic boom puts out more co2 and the like than all of mankinds entire history .
currently there has been a pretty good up tic in seismic activity- some of which have caused major changes to the ocean currents which have a tremendous effect on given area ( yep those bubbling cauldrons under the sea surface likely have more to do with the ph of the oceans than man does)

But hey can't bilk any money out that, now can we?

Another tired anti-science argument that has been debunked over and over

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/volcanoes-still-not-source-increasing-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

All i have to do is read one of the "how to argue with climate science" articles on one of the skeptic blogs like junkscience to know what tired argument you guys are going to roll out next.



Oh and remind me... where is all this secret money that the greedy evil scientists are getting out of this coming from? I didnt get my check this month...

 

[jharkin]

Maybe we can blame our political system, as much as anything else. As long as the noble effort of reducing our impact on climate change is tied to the same party as wealth re-distribution, you're not going to continue to see resistance from those with the most ability to affect change.

I assume you mean American political parties because pretty much no major party of any ideology outside the US doubts the science.

So which party is that exactly? You mean one of the parties trying to reduce our current situation of income inequality worse than the age of robber barons? Sadly neither of the two major parties in the US actually cares about saving the middle class unless saying so will win votes. The just pay varying amount of lip service to the problems and then go back to giving handouts to their big corporate donors.

 

[sportbikerider78]

Ahh yes of course - because those all those scientists are a bunch of greedy money grubbing conspirators and big oil is a bunch of philanthropic saints with only the best interest's of humanity as motivation.


Zzzzz.... Zzzzzzz... . Are we really going to have this childish argument again? please.....

No, however, grant money comes from where? And you do not think grant money impacts the research that gets approval and does not get approval?

Why has there been so much fraud and manipulation of data..even from NASA? Which hid earlier studies that showed global cooling. Last I checked, they were a pretty stand up group of scientists and engineers.

I'm waiting for my check too. But I'm just a taxpayer and want to keep my own money so I don't have to work till I'm 105.

 

[jharkin]

And who do you think has more money to throw at this? And more to loose?

non-profit scientific research institutions..... or Exxon Mobil's mutli-billion dollar balance sheet.

C'mon man....

 

[Ashful]

I assume you mean American political parties because pretty much no major party of any ideology outside the US doubts the science.

So which party is that exactly? You mean one of the parties trying to reduce our current situation of income inequality worse than the age of robber barons?

You and I will always disagree on this one. On a related note, I heard today that Phelps now has 22 olympic medals. How is that fair, when I have none? How long until the Sanders supporters ask him to hand some of those out to those without one?

 

[jharkin]

You and I will always disagree on this one. On a related note, I heard today that Phelps now has 22 olympic medals. How is that fair, when I have none? How long until the Sanders supporters ask him to hand some of those out to those without one?

We probably will always disagree - and you know its not personal.


I think you also know very well that the economy and wealth inequality is not that simple. You know Im not calling for socialist handouts. And you know that all those blue collar families stuggling in low wage jobs are not lazy. All people want is a level playing field.

Ive seen the worst of corporate America shipping jobs overseas while the executives rake in 8 figure bonuses. And we all know that college educations are getting farther and farther out of reach for average families. Not to mention companies like Walmart who rely on my tax dollars via welfare to make up for the fact they wont pay their employees a living wage.

Dont get me started....

 

[sportbikerider78]

For those issues of income inequality you have to go to the root cause. Why is a dollar worth less and less every year? Why is it getting harder and harder? Everything is costing more and our dollar is worth much less!
Taxes are going up. They are oppressive in NY. Health care is more expensive than ever. College is more expensive than ever because of cheap money and super low interest rates that are manipulated by the federal reserve. Get the government out of higher education financing and you'll see the price plummet. It is the same with home values. They are super high because money is cheap.

None of the reasons for any of those major issues are because a CEO makes a 7 figure salary. In a company that has 5,000 employees, giving each of of them $500 from the CEO's pay isn't going to level any part of the playing field.

Why are they sending jobs overseas? To make more money right? Well how are they getting financing to invest hundreds of millions in unstable 3rd world countries and selling that idea to their shareholders? That would be very risky! The good old import/export bank removes that risk with US taxpayer backed loans to these huge companies so they don't have to shoulder the risk of exporting jobs! It's insanity defined.

Also, regulations and taxes make it super advantageous to move manufacturing overseas. Do we need to tax every bolt, nut, fastener, piston, connector, wheel....10 times before it goes into a car? Then tax the guy earning the money to buy the car. Then tax him again with sales tax when he actually spends his money? Then we complain about a CEO making all this money on a car, when we personally got ***** buying the car because of taxes...not private profit.

The idea of Liberty is not democratic or republican. This is a smoke screen to keep us squabbling about issues that don't matter instead of focusing on the ones that are ruining our lives.
People have to be able to work hard. Keep their income. Send their kids to good schools (private or public). Keep the value of their money. And be left the hell alone.

 

[jebatty]

Here's a pretty good explanation of US federal spending. Federal Spending

Just 30.5% of total federal spending (discretionary + mandatory) goes to things other than health, social security and military/homeland security. So, from what program funded by the federal government and from which you get a substantial benefit are you willing to give up to get lower taxes? If you are not willing to give up anything substantial to get lower taxes, then I suggest you have no right to say someone else should give something up to get lower taxes. And, to get a 30% federal tax cut, which is about which some running for federal office say they will do, everything has to be give up, if health, social security and military/homeland security are to remain intact.

I haven't found anyone yet willing to give up anything substantial to get lower taxes, and I submit the rant for lower taxes is purely political crap, bogus, hype, unrealistic, and never will happen, which really isn't all that bad, because everything considered, we all live in an already truly great country and we need to pay taxes to keep this country great. There is no other country in the world to which I would want to move with the hope of lower taxes, and I doubt I would ever see lower taxes in any other country and get the same quality of life as I get in the good old USA.

 

[Ashful]

I'd give up government-funded healthcare and social security in about a second flat, jebatty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk