Page 5 of 34 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 832
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,330
    Quote Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
    Good post, Old Goat. That was the first intelligent response.

    Have you given thought to the people living in places that would benefit from the changing climate? Any change like this has both winners and losers. I never hear any discussion of that, probably because it does not further the political agenda of so many.
    I'm not sure there are many places that would benefit from rapid climate change. Physical, economic, and social structures are very complex, even in preindustrial parts of the world. Changing from a seal hunting to an agrarian economy, for example, will be very difficult to accomplish over a few generations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenstateofmind View Post
    The answer to this question is that an estimated 60% of species' diversity has been lost in the last half decade. If our ecosystems are the canary, we're chocking on black lung. This isn't a direct cause of climate change (although ecosystem services are lost); just another correlation to unsustainable consumption
    Exactly
    Quote Originally Posted by raisingarizona13 View Post
    Stop using plains and automobiles? Heck no! I got me an Ikon pass this year and I'm powder chasing storm cycles. My Monday water cooler stories have never been so #alltime.

    Yeah, we're fucked. everyone talks a big talk but they don't really do anything about it. Sure they post up links to articles and argue things on the internet but in reality it's life as usual with their non stop over the top consumerism.

    I like what Old Goat said but one can also argue that the reason for this abrupt change in climate is a result of the current human population and an abrupt climate change will likely fix the current human population problem.
    Overpopulation is obviously a huge part of the problem. Ideally we would deal with it directly at the same timecwe address carbon energy. While climate change will drastically reduce the population the result will be a world in which the living envy the dead

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    Politics have created a circus called, "Global Warming" which is what most folks respond to. After reading one journal entry about the "end of snow", I'd rather look at additional sources - ones without government ties.

    Sure, I think we are fucking up our planet, but I'm not sold on the CO2 theory - yet. CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - it's H20. Water vapor (cloud formations) is what causes most of the global warming (do some research on the planet Venus to fully understand).

    So, does extra CO2 cause more water vapor? Many scientist say it does, because it traps more radiated heat from the earth which then creates higher temps, but none of this crap is proven; just theorized. There are scientific pundits that argue these things in other texts.

    Regardless, I think it's common sense that burning fossil fuels at alarming rates can fuck shit up. But - nobody wants to do anything about it. You, me, politicians, etc. If anyone did, we could effectively eliminate it by half tomorrow (cars/airplanes/etc). Is it causing our climate to go haywire? Nobody knows for certain.. Yet...
    with temps warming there's more water vapor in the atmosphere

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    391
    I meant 50 years. Still I was wrong.
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...ervation-news/

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    57
    We have about a snow balls chance on the Senate floor of actually doing anything with climate change when a good number of Americans have been convinced by what amounts to quackery that climate change is a hoax.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    I'm not sure there are many places that would benefit from rapid climate change. Physical, economic, and social structures are very complex, even in preindustrial parts of the world. Changing from a seal hunting to an agrarian economy, for example, will be very difficult to accomplish over a few generations.

    Exactly


    Overpopulation is obviously a huge part of the problem. Ideally we would deal with it directly at the same timecwe address carbon energy. While climate change will drastically reduce the population the result will be a world in which the living envy the dead
    Well I didn't say it was going to be pretty.
    dirtbag, not a dentist

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    Politics have created a circus called, "Global Warming" which is what most folks respond to. After reading one journal entry about the "end of snow", I'd rather look at additional sources - ones without government ties.

    Sure, I think we are fucking up our planet, but I'm not sold on the CO2 theory - yet. CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - it's H20. Water vapor (cloud formations) is what causes most of the global warming (do some research on the planet Venus to fully understand).

    So, does extra CO2 cause more water vapor? Many scientist say it does, because it traps more radiated heat from the earth which then creates higher temps, but none of this crap is proven; just theorized. There are scientific pundits that argue these things in other texts.

    Regardless, I think it's common sense that burning fossil fuels at alarming rates can fuck shit up. But - nobody wants to do anything about it. You, me, politicians, etc. If anyone did, we could effectively eliminate it by half tomorrow (cars/airplanes/etc). Is it causing our climate to go haywire? Nobody knows for certain.. Yet...
    Are all dentists dumb as shit or is it just the ones in this thread on TGR?

    Asking for AOC.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    Sure, I think we are fucking up our planet, but I'm not sold on the CO2 theory - yet. CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - it's H20. Water vapor (cloud formations) is what causes most of the global warming (do some research on the planet Venus to fully understand).
    I'm curious about the Venus angle. Have some links/pointers/brief summary? My understanding is Venus has no water, yet is unusually warm.

    I happened to be reading about Venus's atmosphere the other day on an unrelated topic. From memory... The planet started out similar to Earth, but has lost it's magnetic/molten core. It's atmosphere is now 97% CO2, 3% N2, and trace gases. One of the trace gases is H2SO4, which forms clouds (Does it rain sulfuric acid?). Notably is has very little water any more, thought to be lost to space. What I read says it's also a model for CO2 greenhouse effect.

    I've also looked into the science around global warming on Earth, and find the principles to be solid. All the what-ifs that get dragged up (measurement errors, solar changes, little ice age, ice/snow cover, water vapor, etc) have been asked and studied and assessed and modeled. It's pretty convincing that the Earth will tend to get warmer due to increasing CO2 levels. Also the oceans will get more acidic. It is also pretty convincing that temperature changes to date are almost entirely caused by human activities.

    Any specific thing said or proposed by an activist may be bullshit, misunderstood by them, or taken out of context to promote an agenda. However, their hearts are in the right place. We have a real problem and plenty of evidence. The responsible approach is to convince more of the holdouts and start solving it. Change the argument to how quickly can we solve. We've done good work on lead pollution, asbestos, ozone, famine, disease, etc. Civilization hasn't ended. It's doable.

    I'm convinced most of the models are wrong, but they are wrong in the same way as accelerating down an icy mountain road, asking when (and how badly) you're gonna crash. Idk, this corner, maybe the next. Prudence says "keep it well under control."
    10/01/2012 Site was upgraded to 300 baud.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    6,053
    ^^^ thank you.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    2,153
    Quote Originally Posted by mcski View Post
    Did you really just proclaim Bernie and AOC are authoritarians that rule by violence? Based on what, their long history w the military?

    WTF is wrong with you?
    All polititcians are authoritarians who rule by violence. That's an indisputable fact! Every government in the recorded history of this planet has ruled by violence, that's just what governments do. Ours, for the entirety of our lifetimes until today is no different. "Do what we say or we'll fine you, hurt you and throw you into a cage".

    I have zero tolerance for hypocrites like Bernie who believes the 1% should pay exorbitant taxes but even though he's part of that 1% that it shouldn't apply to him. And AOC has publicly proclaimed her desire for a 70% tax, how do you think that will be achieved if not at gunpoint? I'll go out on a limb and guess that after your endorsement of these 2 psychopaths, that you just might self describe as a liberal. Serious question, do you believe the answer to gun violence is more gun violence?

    I'll let you have the final word here out of respect for those who don't this dragged into PolyAss.
    "The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size."

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Are all dentists dumb as shit or is it just the ones in this thread on TGR?

    Asking for AOC.
    Insults rarely contribute to understanding or consensus. Lots of reasonable people ask questions like Pdc's. Many reasonable people can change their minds. Also many reasonable people dig their heels in when insulted. Better to accept the question and address it. The way I read it, Pdc's mostly on board already. Give him a hand, and he'll pull himself the rest of the way up.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    Insults rarely contribute to understanding or consensus. Lots of reasonable people ask questions like Pdc's. Many reasonable people can change their minds. Also many reasonable people dig their heels in when insulted. Better to accept the question and address it. The way I read it, Pdc's mostly on board already. Give him a hand, and he'll pull himself the rest of the way up.
    Agreed that insults don't contribute to consensus or understanding, but that is rarely achieved on TGR. Just having some fun with that post.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    991

    Very Bad News on Climate

    Quote Originally Posted by powpig View Post
    And AOC has publicly proclaimed her desire for a 70% tax, how do you think that will be achieved if not at gunpoint?
    I'm glad you asked this question. I would certainly hope violence wouldn't be needed for citizens to follow the law.

    The 70% tax rate she mentioned is the marginal rate on income over $10 million. Meaning, income below $10 million would be taxed at much lower rates depending on the corresponding tax rate for each chunk of income and only income above $10 million gets the 70% tax.

    Only about 16000 taxpayers make over 10 million out of 127 million households.
    Currently the top tax bracket is 37 percent, which kicks in for income above $510,300 for individuals and $612,350 for married couples, and would on increase to 70% for the income over $10 million.

    Think this is crazy? Top marginal tax rates have been much higher at other times in the past and growth and the economy were thriving.

    https://goo.gl/images/DGq6iS

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,045
    Wrong thread for that shit.

    And IMO, Climate Change deniers are right next to the anti-vaxxers on the stupid scale.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Agreed that insults don't contribute to consensus or understanding, but that is rarely achieved on TGR. Just having some fun with that post.
    Carry on then.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    3,553
    Quote Originally Posted by The Tortoise View Post
    Wrong thread for that shit.

    And IMO, Climate Change deniers are right next to the anti-vaxxers on the stupid scale.
    IDK... We could also discuss moon landing Apollo mission deniers or flat eathers. Some people claim to have proof that God exists. Some people refuse to believe or have faith in anything that THEIR level of proof and THEIR standard for "evidence" hasn't been met... which is usually impossible.

    Either you trust experts who have devoted their entire life's work to understanding these complex issues, or you go with your gut feeling about what the "truth" or best estimates are. Personally, I'm going with the people who land little space drones on freaking asteroids and rovers on Mars when it comes to complex issues involving mathematical models and chaos theory.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Agreed that insults don't contribute to consensus or understanding, but that is rarely achieved on TGR. Just having some fun with that post.
    Nah, you're just a dick. Add some content like an adult.

    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    with temps warming there's more water vapor in the atmosphere
    Of course, but it's a bit more complicated than that. The real question is the CO2 from humans causing more water vapor. There are several CO2 contributors that occur naturally, such as volcanic action and ocean waters. Human created CO2 is tiny compared to naturally produced CO2. That being said, those tiny amounts add up, and over the last 100 years, we've release a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere and mowed down tons of forestry. I've studied research from both sides and am still digesting it as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    Insults rarely contribute to understanding or consensus. Lots of reasonable people ask questions like Pdc's. Many reasonable people can change their minds. Also many reasonable people dig their heels in when insulted. Better to accept the question and address it. The way I read it, Pdc's mostly on board already. Give him a hand, and he'll pull himself the rest of the way up.
    I've put in the research and am still digging, which is how most should approach something they are going to discuss - with actual knowledge and research.

    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    I'm curious about the Venus angle. Have some links/pointers/brief summary? My understanding is Venus has no water, yet is unusually warm.
    Venus is an interesting planet. From what I remember, it's not warmer than earth because of sun proximity; it's warmer due to having more abundant greenhouse gases (mostly CO2), which I believe water vapor is included, but at extremely low levels almost undetectable.
    Last edited by Pauldotcom; 02-25-2019 at 03:23 PM.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    Politics have created a circus called, "Global Warming" which is what most folks respond to. After reading one journal entry about the "end of snow", I'd rather look at additional sources - ones without government ties.

    Sure, I think we are fucking up our planet, but I'm not sold on the CO2 theory - yet. CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere - it's H20. Water vapor (cloud formations) is what causes most of the global warming (do some research on the planet Venus to fully understand).
    I have posted serious replies previously, but since you asked I will do more now. How can you not be sold on the CO2 theory when 97+% of the world's climate scientists say the science on this is settled? All nations on the planet had to sign on to the IPCC's reports, including the most recent one saying we have 12 years to take drastic action to avoid climate crisis. You don't trust scientists or any government at all? Serious question.

    So, does extra CO2 cause more water vapor? Many scientist say it does, because it traps more radiated heat from the earth which then creates higher temps, but none of this crap is proven; just theorized. There are scientific pundits that argue these things in other texts.
    When you say "CO2 ... traps more radiated heat from the earth which then creates higher temps," do you realize that is the definition of the greenhouse effect that is causing global warming and thus you are saying CO2 in the atmosphere is heating up the planet?

    Regardless, I think it's common sense that burning fossil fuels at alarming rates can fuck shit up. But - nobody wants to do anything about it. You, me, politicians, etc. If anyone did, we could effectively eliminate it by half tomorrow (cars/airplanes/etc). Is it causing our climate to go haywire? Nobody knows for certain.. Yet...
    I agree with you that it is common sense that burning fossil fuels at alarming rates can fuck shit up. But lots of people want to do something about it, include those supporting the Green New Deal, a plan to address the climate crisis at the scale the situation requires. What makes you say nobody wants to do anything about it?

    Are you suggesting we could eliminate cars and airplanes tomorrow? How? That doesn't seem possible, or desirable. It seems the goal should be to shift us off fossil fuels as quickly as possible while disrupting society as little as possible.

    When people say (you didn't say this) that the Green New Deal or climate alarmists want to take away hamburgers, milkshakes, your car, your house, airplanes, etc, that is just made up bullshit. There is no one saying those things. The goal is to stop burning fossil fuels, using efficiency to reduce demand and alternative energy for fuel.

    I am sick of people denying climate science when the science is no longer up for debate. At this point the debate should be about how we will deal with this problem. I'll leave you with the first 3 paragraphs of an article by David Wells-Wallace about climate change (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/o...warming.html):

    "The age of climate panic is here. Last summer, a heat wave baked the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing dozens from Quebec to Japan. Some of the most destructive wildfires in California history turned more than a million acres to ash, along the way melting the tires and the sneakers of those trying to escape the flames. Pacific hurricanes forced three million people in China to flee and wiped away almost all of Hawaii’s East Island.

    "We are living today in a world that has warmed by just one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, when records began on a global scale. We are adding planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate faster than at any point in human history since the beginning of industrialization.

    In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has become known as its “Doomsday” report — “a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” as one United Nations official described it — detailing climate effects at 1.5 and two degrees Celsius of warming (2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). At the opening of a major United Nations conference two months later, David Attenborough, the mellifluous voice of the BBC’s “Planet Earth” and now an environmental conscience for the English-speaking world, put it even more bleakly: “If we don’t take action,” he said, “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    72
    Great post, thanks.

    Yes, I am a skeptic, of pretty much everything. Until I compile my own research, I'll maintain a neutral stance. I am enrolled in a climate study course (the third of a series I've taken which have all been pretty brutal) which has led me to begin research on the topic. In no way am I denying climate science. I've been studying and researching how the climate works, how to measure it, etc prior to the point of changing. I think it's important to understand how it works before making an educated statement.

    It would be irresponsible to suggest that change is not occurring. It would also be negligent to suggest CO2 isn't a major reason for this. But, as I stated previous, why? What caused climate changes 100 million years ago?

    One complex variable is the way we record data. This has changed, and it's hard to compare to how we did it 100 years ago.

    Anyhow, I will continue to study and appreciate input on the subject - I think it's a pretty important one.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Durango, CO
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    "The age of climate panic is here. Last summer, a heat wave baked the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing dozens from Quebec to Japan. Some of the most destructive wildfires in California history turned more than a million acres to ash, along the way melting the tires and the sneakers of those trying to escape the flames. Pacific hurricanes forced three million people in China to flee and wiped away almost all of Hawaii’s East Island."
    Shouldn't the expert you quoted understand the difference between weather and climate?

    Isn't citing heatwaves, forest fires and hurricanes as evidence of global warming just as fallacious as citing cold waves and blizzards as evidence that global warming does not exist?


    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by FatChance; 02-25-2019 at 04:05 PM.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    3,553
    The science on climate is very nearly as "settled" as the science on gravity. Saying you have the background and knowledge to legitimately disagree and debate with the "consensus" on man made global warming is pretty much the same thing as saying you can prove that a hammer and a feather won't fall at the same rate on the moon or elsewhere where there is no atmosphere to speak of.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
    Shouldn't the expert you quoted understand the difference between weather and climate?
    That's the problem. Everyone is an expert, yet nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about. It's difficult to decipher through the bullshit which I why I would like to conclude research before I form an opinion.

    BTW - I would never cite a newspaper or news article on the subject of climate change. I’d more more intrigued by a scientific journal.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    5,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    That's the problem. Everyone is an expert, yet nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about. It's difficult to decipher through the bullshit which I why I would like to conclude research before I form an opinion.
    Your logic is circularly inscrutable

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldotcom View Post
    That's the problem. Everyone is an expert, yet nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about. It's difficult to decipher through the bullshit which I why I would like to conclude research before I form an opinion.
    One of the issues I have with what you say is you like to use "no one" or "everyone" statements about things that this doesn't fit. No, not everyone is an expert, but some people truly are. I'm not a climate expert, nor do I have the scientific background or time to pour over all the science out there. That is why I look to the real experts, the scientists who are creating these reports, for information on this topic. David Wells-Wallace isn't a scientist either I don't believe, but, as a journalist he has "spent the past three years buried in climate science and following the research as it expanded into ever darker territory. The number of “good news” scientific papers that I’ve encountered in that time I could probably count on my two hands. The “bad news” papers number probably in the thousands — each day seeming to bring a new, distressing revision to our understanding of the environmental trauma already unfolding."

    I found out about him and his new book by following some of the top climate scientists in the world such as Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State U. He has recommended Wells-Wallace's new book as it sums up the work of climate scientists well.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I found out about him and his new book by following some of the top climate scientists in the world such as Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State U. He has recommended Wells-Wallace's new book as it sums up the work of climate scientists well.
    Interesting, I will have to check out the book, thanks. BTW - bad habit of mine, using terms like "no one" and "everyone". I agree.

    Remember when we used to blame warming due to ozone depletion?
    https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global...n-dioxide.html

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,709
    https://globalnews.ca/news/4997878/m...ming-evidence/

    Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

    “Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.
    They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

    Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.
    Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.

    “The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •