Climate change

[Jean-Luc Picard]

OF course we're affecting it. But In how many ways?

I'm new to SW.. I read through this whole thread & both sides have some valid points. I tend to be a libertarian for the most part, but would never be willing to hang my hat with any particular party, as they tend to shift with money, culture, whatever.

As it relates to this post, right off the bat, I agree with Mafesto that there are all kinds of different things influencing climate change. Deforestation, Pollution (have you seen satellite images of China - Shmoley what a cloud). But there are also all kinds of mitigating factors.

When I was in College (early 2000's) I took a science class that the teacher probably could have been a card carrying communist for all I could tell, though she was fascinating person. She had us watch a documentary on "global Dimming." I found it fascinating at the time. Our pollution is probably affecting climate change & an increase in overall temperatures, but what this study indicated was that the Dimming affect of pollution KEPT the temperatures from climbing as drastically as they might. Studies linked global dimming to things as drastic as the 80's famine of Ethiopia. The people studying this effect got a rare opportunity to see it reverse for a week after 9-11 when all US Air traffic was grounded. In that week differences between High & Low temperatures nearly DOUBLED. (Eg.. Normal day - High of 85, low of 55, week of 9-11 (no pollution from Jets) High of 94, low of 34).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
(not sure where to find the original documentary)

I'm not sure why this has stuck with me so much, but my point is.. There are SOOOO many processes and SOOO many studies, its hard to pin anything down. One of the folks who posted complained about the extremes of both sides & I completely agree. Thailand & Florida won't be underwater in 10 years. But considering this was the best winter I've seen in the Rockies in 30 years, Things are trending warmer.

Knee jerk reactions are stupid. Does anybody remember the "cash for Clunkers" program from W. & Obama? I know - Lets get people to buy cars with better gas mileage by having them turn in their perfectly good working cars & filling their engines with sand & give them a rebate on a new one - never mind the amount of green house gases emitted in producing the new one, combined with the amount of junk created by destroying thousands of cars that are still in working order. Not sure what genius thought of that one, but I'm pretty sure his pockets were lined by the auto industry.

I think the Earth isn't given nearly the credit it deserves too. Have humans messed it up? Sure. Its survived cataclysmic eruptions, meteor impacts, solar events, who knows what else. I think our planet is amazing. We need to take better care of it. But I also think it has a remarkable ability to heal itself.

Last Monday I saw the Totality of the Solar Eclipse from the Mackay Mines in Idaho with my family (which is apparently larger than some of you would be comfortable with). It was unlike anything I have ever seen before! The temperature dropped 30 degrees in about 20 minutes.

If nothing else, it reminded me how small we are on our little speck floating through space. Here's hoping the little speck has got a few more billion years in her.

 

[Idcatman3]

Well I'm sure the one's that support my side are BS
And the ones that support your side are Gospel.
That only makes sense.

Read about it! I'm not trying to be an ***, but there really are ways to tell what is good info and what is bad.

There are reputable sources, and there are bought and paid for sources ("on many sides") and being able to tell the difference is the key to tell whether you're being lied to.

You think there's no financial interest in denying climate change?

 

[Mafesto]

This is by far the most intelligent post from any of us in this thread.
Thank you.

I'm new to SW.. I read through this whole thread & both sides have some valid points. I tend to be a libertarian for the most part, but would never be willing to hang my hat with any particular party, as they tend to shift with money, culture, whatever.

As it relates to this post, right off the bat, I agree with Mafesto that there are all kinds of different things influencing climate change. Deforestation, Pollution (have you seen satellite images of China - Shmoley what a cloud). But there are also all kinds of mitigating factors.

When I was in College (early 2000's) I took a science class that the teacher probably could have been a card carrying communist for all I could tell, though she was fascinating person. She had us watch a documentary on "global Dimming." I found it fascinating at the time. Our pollution is probably affecting climate change & an increase in overall temperatures, but what this study indicated was that the Dimming affect of pollution KEPT the temperatures from climbing as drastically as they might. Studies linked global dimming to things as drastic as the 80's famine of Ethiopia. The people studying this effect got a rare opportunity to see it reverse for a week after 9-11 when all US Air traffic was grounded. In that week differences between High & Low temperatures nearly DOUBLED. (Eg.. Normal day - High of 85, low of 55, week of 9-11 (no pollution from Jets) High of 94, low of 34).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
(not sure where to find the original documentary)

I'm not sure why this has stuck with me so much, but my point is.. There are SOOOO many processes and SOOO many studies, its hard to pin anything down. One of the folks who posted complained about the extremes of both sides & I completely agree. Thailand & Florida won't be underwater in 10 years. But considering this was the best winter I've seen in the Rockies in 30 years, Things are trending warmer.

Knee jerk reactions are stupid. Does anybody remember the "cash for Clunkers" program from W. & Obama? I know - Lets get people to buy cars with better gas mileage by having them turn in their perfectly good working cars & filling their engines with sand & give them a rebate on a new one - never mind the amount of green house gases emitted in producing the new one, combined with the amount of junk created by destroying thousands of cars that are still in working order. Not sure what genius thought of that one, but I'm pretty sure his pockets were lined by the auto industry.

I think the Earth isn't given nearly the credit it deserves too. Have humans messed it up? Sure. Its survived cataclysmic eruptions, meteor impacts, solar events, who knows what else. I think our planet is amazing. We need to take better care of it. But I also think it has a remarkable ability to heal itself.

Last Monday I saw the Totality of the Solar Eclipse from the Mackay Mines in Idaho with my family (which is apparently larger than some of you would be comfortable with). It was unlike anything I have ever seen before! The temperature dropped 30 degrees in about 20 minutes.

If nothing else, it reminded me how small we are on our little speck floating through space. Here's hoping the little speck has got a few more billion years in her.

 

[James T Kirk]

You think there's no financial interest in denying climate change?[/QUOTE]

I'd say this is the most important question for anyone denying...

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

This is by far the most intelligent post from any of us in this thread.
Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Mafesto]

This was a letter in one of the local papers.
Interesting read...

"Millions of readers might believe there is serious climate change, but I haven’t seen a nickel’s worth of facts supporting it, so I’m still a doubter. I believe there’s information that temperatures are cyclic. I’m not an environmental scientist, but I have a good electrical engineering background with lots of statistic experience, so I’m not shooting from the hip.
Consider these facts why I’m skeptical of environmental agencies or politicians looking for more votes.
In 1935-36 there were several days in S.D. with temperatures over 100 degrees – but none in 2016-17. Why?

In 1946 or 1947 I camped with friends on Lake Madison. We decided to walk around the lake with temperatures over 100 degrees every day. We never made it. Why such a long period of days over 100 degrees?
About 12 years ago, Al Gore went before Congress and said the Earth had a bad fever and in 10 years New York would be under water. Ten years later, the northern water passage was frozen over and ships were marooned in the ice. New York was still there. Some idiots counted floating ice as a contributor to rising ocean levels. If ice is floating, its melting will not contribute to rising levels; its displacement is already taken.
How many temperature monitors years ago are now surrounded by blacktop parking lots? Two years ago, the lowest temperature ever recorded was at the South Pole. Why?

If EPA can provide locations in the U.S. where temperatures have been monitored over the past 100 years, we could get some real data. Let’s say 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. every day over 100 years. We could provide statistics to prove or disprove climate change.*
Good statistics would help us understand temperature changes. In the meantime, garbage data has not swayed my opinion."

 

[Jaynelson]

That's about as deep as me giving NASA pointers on space travel lol

 

[Idcatman3]

"I’m not an environmental scientist, but I have a good electrical engineering background with lots of statistic experience"

He's not an environmental scientist, but he's going to tell them how to do their jobs.

Forgive me if I trust environmental scientists more than electrical engineers about environmental concerns. If I need an electric motor fixed, I'll talk to the engineer.

 

[Mafesto]

You guys can mock the old man if it's good for a cheap laugh, but his recollection of previous weather is interesting.

 

[Idcatman3]

You guys can mock the old man if it's good for a cheap laugh, but his recollection of previous weather is interesting.

Anecdotes aren't data, weather isn't climate.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Mafesto]

Anecdotes aren't data, weather isn't climate.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Just curious what he said that is incorrect?

 

[Idcatman3]

Just curious what he said that is incorrect?

The issue isn't that he may be incorrect. The issue is that local experiences aren't universal.
Overall, the planet is getting warmer, regardless of what is happening in South Dakota.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Mafesto]

The issue isn't that he may be incorrect. The issue is that local experiences aren't universal.
Overall, the planet is getting warmer, regardless of what is happening in South Dakota.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Son, the Northern Passage isn't in SD

 

[Idcatman3]

Son, the Northern Passage isn't in SD

Gramps, the point still stands.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Even if arctic ice mass was increasing, it wouldn't mean much on its own. Global climate is what we are looking at. Isolate any one part and you're not getting the big picture. Isolate any one year and you're not getting the big picture.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[Jaynelson]

I've lived in south eastern BC my whole life and have never experienced a summer this hot and dry....would you take that as evidence contrary to that other blurb?

That in itself is just annual weather...not necessarily a trend, and not "evidence" on its own.

From a personal perspective, I agree with the notion that weather is getting more extreme and the storms (etc) more intense. That is pretty easy to agree with on a local scale (for my location at least).

 

[vdo1948]

This was a letter in one of the local papers.
Interesting read...

"Millions of readers might believe there is serious climate change, but I haven’t seen a nickel’s worth of facts supporting it, so I’m still a doubter. I believe there’s information that temperatures are cyclic. I’m not an environmental scientist, but I have a good electrical engineering background with lots of statistic experience, so I’m not shooting from the hip.
Consider these facts why I’m skeptical of environmental agencies or politicians looking for more votes.
In 1935-36 there were several days in S.D. with temperatures over 100 degrees – but none in 2016-17. Why?

In 1946 or 1947 I camped with friends on Lake Madison. We decided to walk around the lake with temperatures over 100 degrees every day. We never made it. Why such a long period of days over 100 degrees?
About 12 years ago, Al Gore went before Congress and said the Earth had a bad fever and in 10 years New York would be under water. Ten years later, the northern water passage was frozen over and ships were marooned in the ice. New York was still there. Some idiots counted floating ice as a contributor to rising ocean levels. If ice is floating, its melting will not contribute to rising levels; its displacement is already taken.
How many temperature monitors years ago are now surrounded by blacktop parking lots? Two years ago, the lowest temperature ever recorded was at the South Pole. Why?

If EPA can provide locations in the U.S. where temperatures have been monitored over the past 100 years, we could get some real data. Let’s say 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. every day over 100 years. We could provide statistics to prove or disprove climate change.*
Good statistics would help us understand temperature changes. In the meantime, garbage data has not swayed my opinion."

Actually, if you go back and read some of the climate change predictions from 10 to 15 years ago they very clearly said that South Dakota would become more temperate; warmer, drier winters and cooler, wetter summers. Pretty much fits what the old man said.

Interesting reading all this though I'm not likely to do so again and this will be my only post. My problem with the deniers is what happens if the 99% of scientists are correct? Effectively you are arguing that you are willing to take the risk that the Earth turns to a living hell for your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren simply so you can save a few bucks and live a slightly simpler and nicer life. I would have thought conservatives cared more about their descendants than that.

 

[Mafesto]

Funny, I remember hearing something about more intense weather patterns, bigger seasonal shifts, larger storms about 20-25 years ago... Driest summer in BC ever after the wettest winter, and "Houston, we have a problem"... sure there have been hurricanes before, but 50" of rain? Nah, it must all be BS, angry guys on the news are more accurate than the view out my window.

Ummm, you may want to research that a little bit.

 

[James T Kirk]

Ummm, you may want to research that a little bit.

Considering that Hawaii has one of the wettest places on earth I'm not surprised to see it that high-they have spots that push 400"/year and if you understand the meteorological reasons for those totals and how a hurricane works you would be very surprised to even be in that ballpark with somewhere as flat as Houston. But if you compare Harvey to the other storms in that area taking into account that it's now over 52" and climbing this one is 8% and 13.5% greater than the next two in line and will likely end up higher.

The guy above raised a really good question, why am I not surprised you skipped answering it? Cmon, you can do it...

 

[Mafesto]

The guy above raised a really good question, why am I not surprised you skipped answering it? Cmon, you can do it...

Sure.
First off everyone needs to understand that the premise of anyone who questions global warming is pro pollution is incorrect.
I'm happy to make choices that reduce polluting within practicality.
Therein lies the crux. Everyone's opinion of what is reasonable or practical will vary. The biggest reason for that variation directly correlates to the belief or skepticism of available information and opinions.

Case in point, I'm a huge disciple of "low hanging fruit" theory. Meaning I'm all for the obvious, least expensive efforts which often times net the greatest results.
As each step proceeds, the process becomes more expensive and nets less in results until a point is reached where the results simply don't merit the investment. Where that point is is usually what the debate will rotate around.

 

[Mafesto]

Considering that Hawaii has one of the wettest places on earth I'm not surprised to see it that high-they have spots that push 400"/year and if you understand the meteorological reasons for those totals and how a hurricane works you would be very surprised to even be in that ballpark with somewhere as flat as Houston. But if you compare Harvey to the other storms in that area taking into account that it's now over 52" and climbing this one is 8% and 13.5% greater than the next two in line and will likely end up higher...

Perhaps, but only one of the top five is Hawaii, and three are Texas, so the point illustrating that this is not unprecedented stands on it's own merit.