Global Warming - Right & Wrong

lousubcap · July 2023

"Catastrophic floods in the Hudson Valley. An unrelenting heat dome over Phoenix. Ocean temperatures hitting 90 degrees Fahrenheit off the coast of Miami. A surprising deluge in Vermont, a rare tornado in Delaware. In 1980, the average time between billion-dollar disasters was 82 days. From 2018-22, the average time between these most extreme events, even controlled for inflation, was just 18 days."

A decade ago, any one of these events would have been seen as an aberration. This week, they are happening simultaneously as climate change fuels extreme weather, prompting Governor Kathy Hochul of New York, a Democrat, to call it “our new normal.”

Over the past month, smoke from Canadian wildfires blanketed major cities around the country, a deadly heat wave hit Texas and Oklahoma and torrential rains flooded parts of Chicago.

“It’s not just a figment of your imagination, and it’s not because everybody now has a smartphone,” said Jeff Berardelli, the chief meteorologist and climate specialist for WFLA News in Tampa. “We’ve seen an increase in extreme weather. This without a doubt is happening.”"

HeavyG · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

Some One scientists tells me what I want to hear are willing to tell so they must be telling the truth.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-denounces-alarmist-climate-predictions-i-dont-believe-there-is-a-climate-crisis/

FTFY

Botch · July 2023

I looked up Dr. Clauser's bio and his Nobel is in a field of quantum mechanics, which really doesn't apply to weather. And his degrees are in

He received a master of arts in physics in 1966 and a doctor of philosophy in physics in 1969 from Columbia University [1] under the direction of Patrick Thaddeus.[7][8]

I've not heard of those degrees before.

His theory about hotter temperatures increasing the Earth's cloud cover, thereby reflecting more sunlight into space, thus lowering the overall temp, makes sense; but he provides no data on increase of our cloud cover now, with the sudden increase of the Earth's average temp (which IS in the data). That should be easy to demonstrate with our current satellite coverage.

And I'm just spitballing here, just a dumb gearhead.

EDIT: Oh, and Wikipedia did have this to say about "Lifesite News":

LifeSiteNews is a Canadian Catholic conservative anti-abortion advocacy website and news publication. LifeSiteNews has published misleading information and conspiracy theories, and in 2021, was banned from some social media platforms for spreading COVID-19 misinformation.

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

The CO2 coalition, huh? Their primary backers are the Koch brothers and the Mercer family. As with most things, just follow the $$$

Canugghead · July 2023

not a fair fight, three on one

lousubcap · July 2023

As has been said in many a setting with data/aka numbers in play, give me enough numbers and the result you want and I can get you there. And so it continues...

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

Canugghead said:

not a fair fight, three on one

That’s what the flat Earthers always say - “it’s not fair that we have to argue against so many scientists who say the Earth is spherical!”

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

In better news:

http://twitter.com/jasonclimateguy/status/1679582523288854528?s=20

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Only the foolish believe the 97% number that still get thrown around by you snowballs. Its been shown to be a made up farce and manipulated like all the data you seem to blindly cling to.

Once again, I’d refer you to the report generated by our very own National Academies that I linked a few pages back. The National Academies includes not just one Nobel laureate, but many. You don’t have to believe me, but their report is difficult to just dismiss as being made up. Of course, you’ll never read it so I don’t know why anyone bothers.

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

Well !!

https://co2coalition.org/2023/07/14/epa-few-stations-show-increase-in-hot-days/

Yeah, well indeed! The best part about this is that the web page you've linked to here actually contains a link to the EPA site. But when showing the maps with the data, your site has actually cut off some of the key context. It's not hot days that the EPA is reporting on, it's unusually hot days (above 95th percentile). Here is the figure from the site you linked:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5017260/uploads/editor/08/2lgoixgr9pqi.png

And here is what it looks like over at the EPA:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5017260/uploads/editor/gb/dlraobmjvu66.png

Notice the differences? They took some effort to manipulate the Figure, didn't they? Why would they do that, you might ask, if you had a brain cell to spare.

In case the lights still haven't come on inside your head, the EPA includes a helpful explainer at the bottom of the page:

You see, entities like the CO2 coalition are counting on people like you not to read the fine print, or not even bothering to check the original source material. How is it that they know they can count on that? Because they know your priors very well, and that once you see something that confirms them... you stop asking questions.

Canugghead · July 2023

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1678823215312023553?s=20

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

I wonder how many of you alarmist snowballs are still driving gas powered cars/trucks and eating belching and farting cows and using fossil fuels for your daily energy needs. If I could ever find one of you alarmist that wasn't a total hypocrite I'd buy that person a drink.

Obviously you don't understand what it means to be a hypocrite. Nobody here has once asked you or anyone else to lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle.

But I guess after getting your ass handed to you on this CO2 coalition disinformation, you haven't got much left.

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

And all you need to do is look at the 1930s. It was extremely hot and dry as well. Why? We were not as populated nor used the fossil fuels to the levels we do now. So how is it possible to have such extremes weather then? Because its always going to happen. Its natural cycles.

HeavyG · July 2023

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1680700286908727298?s=20

Cool (so to speak)!

Foghorn · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:

I wonder how many of you alarmist snowballs are still driving gas powered cars/trucks and eating belching and farting cows and using fossil fuels for your daily energy needs. If I could ever find one of you alarmist that wasn't a total hypocrite I'd buy that person a drink.

Actually, this is a really good point. I think it just speaks to human nature.

People intend to quit smoking or quit drinking or lose weight but their actions often don't match their words - even though those words do reflect their true intentions.

I believe the climate scientists are ultimately going to be proven correct because their conclusions are based on the bulk of the data, not the handpicked equivalents of anecdotes that the Wildman is throwing out that go against the vast majority of the data but do happen to support his belief.

But I drive a gas powered car and in 2003 we moved into a 3900 square foot home that uses a lot of energy - so my actions don't really align with my understanding of the situation. (Note: We recycle, avoid plastic bottles, and do multiple other things that are relatively easy and convenient so as to reduce our contribution to the problem, but we still have a relatively big carbon footprint).

With that said, Wildman, you don't have to look hard to find people who are living their lives based on what is best for the earth and humanity. There are people who bike to work to avoid using gas, people who take the subway to minimize their carbon impact, and there are multiple companies building 100 square foot homes that people are buying to reduce energy use, etc. So, to claim that you can't find one person who lives like that just suggests that you need to get out more - or read a little.

Unfortunately, though, all of this leads me to only one conclusion. If majority of those of us who truly want to be part of the solution can't overcome our nature and desire to be part of societal norms won't just voluntarily do it in a way that is sustainable, the only option left is governmental policies that force us to do the right thing. I'm no fan of government intervention, but I don't see another good option. I'd love for someone to educate me about a better solution.

Gulfcoastguy · July 2023

While I generally side with the eco friendly people I can understand Wildman's last post. Once back early in the Obama days a devote Democrat cited climate change as one of his motives, he drove a 4 door pickup truck 40 miles one way to work. He also had built a house and deliberately didn't choose a heat pump because a regular HVAC was a few hundred cheaper. I said "what are you doing personally to save the climate and I don't mean by voting?". He sold the truck and bought some small Chevrolet car. That lasted for about 4 months until he tried to put an ice chest into it. Back to a 4 door pickup he went. Take this post as you will.

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

Gulfcoastguy said:

While I generally side with the eco friendly people I can understand Wildman's last post. Once back early in the Obama days a devote Democrat cited climate change as one of his motives, he drove a 4 door pickup truck 40 miles one way to work. He also had built a house and deliberately didn't choose a heat pump because a regular HVAC was a few hundred cheaper. I said "what are you doing personally to save the climate and I don't mean by voting?". He sold the truck and bought some small Chevrolet car. That lasted for about 4 months until he tried to put an ice chest into it. Back to a 4 door pickup he went. Take this post as you will.

To me this just emphasizes @Foghorn’s last point. It’s hard to convince people as individuals to make choices for themselves that are inconvenient. That’s why real change that makes enough of a dent requires government policy.

Gulfcoastguy · July 2023

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

nolaegghead · July 2023

Just because one acknowledges the legitimacy of the concern but doesn't regress to a ridiculously ludite fringe-being doesn't mean one can't support proactive systemic changes to solve the problems. This hypocrisy bit is myopic b*llshit by deluded lyin' ball sacks.

Legume · July 2023

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy. I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline. Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption. Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

fishlessman · July 2023

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy. I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline. Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption. Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

first electric cars were in the late 1800's. people went with the trusted horse and buggy instead

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

http://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1681304496234991620?s=20

Legume · July 2023

fishlessman said:

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy. I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline. Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption. Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

first electric cars were in the late 1800's. people went with the trusted horse and buggy instead

Exactly, the uptake is too slow at that pace.

HeavyG · July 2023

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1681304496234991620?s=20

Couple of good threads there. Interesting to learn a bit about the history of the evolution of cutting bits.

YukonRon · July 2023

Hydrocarbons have and will play a role in climate change. Their use has transformed each aspect of our lives, the degree of severity differs from person to person.

CO2 is not the only culprit impacting climate change, there are so many other compounds which effect global temperature, as well as the health of every human on this planet, derived from the use of hydrocarbons.

Aromatic Compounds (Benzine), CFCs, Methane, Aldehydes, Peroxy-Alkyl-Nitrates, Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, and several others are just as important, perhaps in some cases even more so, than Carbon Dioxide in the areas of photosynthesis suppression, upper-level ozone depletion, lower-level greenhouse gas (ozone) creation, and other concerns to human health, right down to cellular health, impacting RNA and DNA.

It remains to be seen whether influencers in the USA and China can mutually agree the current approach, in just two of the world's most industrialized nations, by taking the next step, could initiate a plan to meet the well documented climate concerns (much like India faces currently, with almost zero guidance on environmental impact. Anyone wishing to debate their issue is not directly related to hydrocarbon emissions?).

Exposure to these compounds are definitively linked to leukemia, brain, lung, throat, nasal cancers, as well as the diminished capacity to fight off infections of various sorts. There remain many other issues, we have just not had the time to study adequately, effecting the health of every animal on the face of the planet. The common denominator: compounds derived from hydrocarbons.

My career is based on the minimization of volatile organic compounds and the minimization of hydrocarbons in the manufacturing and curing of surface solutions, globally. We have made significant in-roads in meeting, and in most cases, beating the local, state and federal guidelines currently in place to control various emissions. These steps have required scientific breakthroughs in renewable energy, both in the development and the engineering to make these creations our choice moving forward as a responsible citizen in the global marketplace. In the collective, of industrial awareness, we still have a very long way to go.

Denying the hydrocarbon relationship shared with climate change, as well as the ecological conflicts it poses due to mining, processing, use and disposal, is infantile at its very core. Do better. If not for you, then do it for your family and the generations to come. Think globally, act locally.

Just a bit of history for the republicans in the BGE forum, the Clean Air Act of 1970, was during the Nixon administration, and was considered the beginning the processes of the commitment for a healthier environment via industrial technology, saving hundreds of thousands of lives each decade it has been in place. They recognized the need over 50 years ago. Playing politics as a denier is, at best, very misinformed and a platform of zero strength.

Just my $.02.

nolaegghead · July 2023

Legume said:

Gulfcoastguy said:

No it just means that some people talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.

I think meaningful movement requires meaningful policy. I get that you're saying there are outspoken hypocrites out there, and that probably works against generating momentum in a larger way when people know the person preaching at them is a hypocrite (that was your point, right?). That sucks, but how many people is that?

Maybe the question should be how do we get 50, 60, 70+ percent of our population to make meaningful lifestyle changes on a meaningful timeline. Innovation alone won't go far enough or be adopted quickly enough - how many years have we had hybrids and electric cars and what % of new car sales does that rep now?) Pollicy should be used to generate the need that drives both innovation and adoption. Blah blah mother of invention, blah blah. We need to create the necessity and that's hard when you have people quoting messages from a Cracker Jack box as evidence that climate change/crisis is fake.

We should do what most governments do to influence behavior - fund fixing problem by collecting money from those that contribute to the problem, and subsidize correct behavior by the usual means - tax breaks typically.

Botch · July 2023

WildmanWilson said:
Maybe they should use the same draconian policies they did with covid. That really went over well.

Yeah, it got us to Number One!! Not just in total deaths among "advanced" nations, but Number One among ALL nations! And those policies weren't implemented all over!! We're Number One!!!
Do Better. Do Better, Infantile.

Legume · July 2023

Draconian, lmao.

JohnInCarolina · July 2023

Legume said:

Draconian, lmao.

Don’t forget, Wildman is one of those clowns who never got the Fauci ouchie. You know, because reasons.

Global Warming - Right & Wrong

Comments

Categories