What Climate Wars Did To Science

[JxQx]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

Good post, thanks for the links, I'll read a couple of them.  Still the issue for me, however, is that cutting US emissions by 50% from current levels, for example, would cause extreme hardship here yet only have perhaps 5 or 10% impact on the global emission rate.  I'm making those numbers up but I believe they're in the ballpark.

Those numbers are pretty accurate. The US accounts for about 20% of GHG emissions and China is about 30%. 

[Gunther]

37 minutes ago, JxQx said:

Those numbers are pretty accurate. The US accounts for about 20% of GHG emissions and China is about 30%. 

Wow, good to know, thanks.  

[Ernest Jones]

1 hour ago, Spanky said:

Good for you EJ, everyone needs a buddy. my 12 pots to your thousands , I would like like to say thought provoking..but your not.

2-3 times a week TYVM.

Once again my knack for subtlety has gotten the best of me.

By consistent, I meant consistently...Gunthy. 

 

 

 

[jamo]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/us-renewables-dropping-in-price-growing-in-significance/

[boogielicious]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/weather/arctic-sea-ice-shrinking/index.html

Quote

Arctic sea ice shrinks to second lowest level ever

Ice levels at the North Pole have shrunk to their second lowest level ever, scientists say -- and there could be worse to come.

Every year the arctic ice naturally shrinks in the spring and summer before regrowing during winter, however the drastic melt in 2016 has surprised scientists.

"It was a stormy, cloudy and fairly cool summer," US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) director Mark Serreze said in a statement.

"Historically such weather conditions slow down the summer ice loss, but we still got down to essentially a tie for second lowest on the satellite record."

According to a new report released by NSIDC and NASA, arctic ice levels fell to their lowest levels this year on September 10, covering about 1.6 million square miles (4.4 million square kilometers), almost the same as in September 2007.

The lowest sea ice extent recorded was on September 17, 2012, when it fell to just 1.31 million square miles (3.39 million square kilometers).
 

 

[phillyk]

On 9/16/2016 at 3:34 AM, boogielicious said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/weather/arctic-sea-ice-shrinking/index.html

 

Boy the news coming from the north pole is getting worse and worse.  Still overly warm there with barely any ice build up, comparatively.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 9/15/2016 at 1:55 AM, Strandly said:

I don't know if the climate is changing but I wouldn't be surprised.  The spin of the planet is slowing, the moon is drifting away from the Earth, and the sun is expected to burn out eventually.  Why wouldn't the weather change too?

My single biggest complaint with the climate change dilemma is how the possibility that a warming planet might end up benefiting us is absolutely 100% ignored.  The only end I see discussed is disaster, every single time.

All this tells me is that nobody knows what the hell is going on.

 

Again, I would say, well said Sir! It's been proven that shifts in the jet stream can accelerate or decelerate the earth's rotation. The moon orbits the earth at varying distances, and has for a very long time. And the Sun will burn out eventually, but nor for millions of years. However, it has gone through periods where it has run a little "hot" and then run a little "cool".

As far as a warming planet signifying doom, I can remember a news report after a very strong "El Nino" Winter, resulting in much warmer than normal temps through the Winter. The upper Midwest and Northeast reportedly burned about $12 Billion dollars less in heating fuels that year than the last. That much less fuel being burned, means that much fewer pollutants put into the atmosphere. Overall, I would view that as a good thing.

However, it's important to realize that "global warming" was a theory! And that theory has been far from proven!

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Again, I would say, well said Sir! It's been proven that shifts in the jet stream can accelerate or decelerate the earth's rotation.

A day on earth changes on the order of a few milliseconds.

45 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

The moon orbits the earth at varying distances, and has for a very long time. And the Sun will burn out eventually, but nor for millions of years. However, it has gone through periods where it has run a little "hot" and then run a little "cool".

As far as a warming planet signifying doom, I can remember a news report after a very strong "El Nino" Winter, resulting in much warmer than normal temps through the Winter. The upper Midwest and Northeast reportedly burned about $12 Billion dollars less in heating fuels that year than the last. That much less fuel being burned, means that much fewer pollutants put into the atmosphere. Overall, I would view that as a good thing.

However, it's important to realize that "global warming" was a theory! And that theory has been far from proven!

Please don't be a climate change denier. Virtually every scientist studying this stuff will tell you it's real, it's important, and humans are the cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - I'm not linking to Wikipedia as a definitive source, but look at it as a starting point.

[phillyk]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

A day on earth changes on the order of a few milliseconds.

Please don't be a climate change denier. Virtually every scientist studying this stuff will tell you it's real, it's important, and humans are the cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - I'm not linking to Wikipedia as a definitive source, but look at it as a starting point.

To add on, deniers need to research Carbon isotopes.  Temperature change is only one piece of data that scientists look at.

This is from 2004, but gives a good explanation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

[Abu3baid]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

A day on earth changes on the order of a few milliseconds.

Please don't be a climate change denier. Virtually every scientist studying this stuff will tell you it's real, it's important, and humans are the cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change - I'm not linking to Wikipedia as a definitive source, but look at it as a starting point.

Scientist who don't believe

Another article

I really don't care one way or another at this moment in time, but a quick search and "virtually every scientist" is a bit bold in my opinion.  Plenty of others I didn't link to.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I really don't care one way or another at this moment in time, but a quick search and "virtually every scientist" is a bit bold in my opinion.  Plenty of others I didn't link to.

I don't think it's that bold. I also said "virtually every scientist studying this stuff." That doesn't include a mechanical engineer who is not working in this field.

And seriously, did you read the things you linked to? The first site apparently doesn't believe in CSS. I'm amazed they know what a PNG is, even though they use it to create translucent beveled text with a drop shadow. And the second is from "Right-Wing News .com"?

Consider the sources.

---

Additionally, what's the harm in polluting less? In doing things at an unnatural rate less? Contrary to what some people said on one of the sites you linked to, Abu, the environment cannot "heal itself." That may have been true when there were no cities, gas-guzzling cars, factories, etc. When the earth was basically 100% nature. Maybe. But it's not true now.

[14ledo81]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

---

Additionally, what's the harm in polluting less? In doing things at an unnatural rate less? Contrary to what some people said on one of the sites you linked to, Abu, the environment cannot "heal itself." That may have been true when there were no cities, gas-guzzling cars, factories, etc. When the earth was basically 100% nature. Maybe. But it's not true now.

I would say that some who have lost their job due to companies moving out of the country (from stronger regulations) would say there is some harm in polluting less.

Especially when the polluting factory is still doing the same thing, just somewhere else in the world.

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I would say that some who have lost their job due to companies moving out of the country (from stronger regulations) would say there is some harm in polluting less.

Especially when the polluting factory is still doing the same thing, just somewhere else in the world.

This is where I'm at, we are putting coal miners out of work here in the US but China and India continue to build coal burning power plants.  

I fully support the use of solar and wind as alternative power sources but they're not ready to take over as primary power sources.  Nuclear remains the cleanest power we can produce but no one wants the plants in their home town, so it seems we're premature in calling for alternative power sources and shutting down coal mines when we don't have superior alternatives.  

[Abu3baid]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

This is where I'm at, we are putting coal miners out of work here in the US but China and India continue to build coal burning power plants.  

I fully support the use of solar and wind as alternative power sources but they're not ready to take over as primary power sources.  Nuclear remains the cleanest power we can produce but no one wants the plants in their home town, so it seems we're premature in calling for alternative power sources and shutting down coal mines when we don't have superior alternatives.  

That's interesting you say that, I think today there was a referendum in Switzerland to a proposal to fade out their 5 or 6 power plants.. they are one of the most competitive economies in the world and they voted to not phase out anything.  

I guess the plants are getting old, but the people don't care because they don't want to count their hens before the eggs hatch (ie the clean renewable energy sources)

[saevel25]

Coal plants shutting down is more to do with natural gas generation. Gas prices are low. Coal is more expensive because of the human cost to mine and the clean coal initiatives. When a new power plant is open its a small gas plant open in a rural area on cheap land. Is there some money to be made on coal in China, sure. In the US, we are a Natural Gas generation country. Its doesn't look like it's slowing down anytime soon with fracking in the Midwest. 

To anybody who denies humans do not harm the environment look at the number of species that have gone extinct over the past century. Look at the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi drains at. Look at the drastic decrease in bees that will dramatically influence plant pollination. Look at the massive amount of plastic needs floating in the Pacific because exfoliation became popular in soaps. These are all human driven issues.  We have serious issues facing us in our lifetimes. 

This is our planet, and as of right now we are stuck here. We should be doing a lot more to develop as much environmentally safe practices as possible. Would you trash your home you live in? Well as a species we are doing it. 

[phillyk]

The first link isn't a climate change denier.  It's a "who cares" link.  There are a lot of people who admit climate change is real, even mad-made, but they don't care for whatever reason.  It could be that they believe the environment always changes and is doing so now (even for the better), but they don't take into account the rate of change.  A lot of people want to find renewable energy sources that are efficient and financially friendly and until that happens, don't want change.

More so, there are tons of studies on this, with few rebuttals.  I'm not talking about NASA's temperature readings.  I'm talking all the different sources of climate forcing and sinks, and the outcome, in nature, of these changes. But, as I said above, there are a lot of people who will still say "who cares".

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

 To anybody who denies humans do not harm the environment look at the number of species that have gone extinct over the past century. Look at the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi drains at. Look at the drastic decrease in bees that will dramatically influence plant pollination. Look at the massive amount of plastic needs floating in the Pacific because exfoliation became popular in soaps. These are all human driven issues.  We have serious issues facing us in our lifetimes. 

We definitely impact the environment, but the issues listed above aren't related to fossil fuels.  

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

We definitely impact the environment, but the issues listed above aren't related to fossil fuels.  

The people who deny climate change tend to deny all wrong doing we have influencing the environment. Showing we do impact it in other ways is important. We shouldn't marginalize the impacts we have done. 

Still, a majority of scientists believe that humans are the primary cause to climate change. A very high percent believe humans had some influence. I trust people who made science their career, who know more than me, than conservative politicians.