U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-08-2013, 10:25 PM
 
37,069 posts, read 38,262,371 times
Reputation: 14831

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Sigh more hyperbole.

Excuse me? I guess it was my imagination when a hundred and some poor countries walked out of the recent climate talks becsue they weren't discussing compensation. If you are going to combat CO@ emissions you need every nation onboard to do it and the only way you are going to get these developing nations onboard is to pay them NOT to burn fossil fuels. That's a weird view of the world to think people in these countries are going to remain poor to save the environment. They are going to use fossil fuels unless they are compensated.






Quote:
Better investment in cleaner energy
Like what? This was never issue here in the US in the past becsue of anthracite. Presently it's not an issue becsue there is other sources to heat these homes. The Chinese are using a low quality coal that produces a lot of soot and trying to marginalize that pollution from residential sources is not something as simple as saying lets replace it becsue you need something to replace it with .



Quote:
Just pointing out how your bias clouds your eyes.
I post facts and reasonable opinions based on facts. For example I don't naively suggest more than a billion Chinese replace the way they heat their homes without first considering what they could replace it with.



Quote:
Why are you focusing on just one energy supply...... coal bias?
Because it's coal that is our greatest source of energy.

 
Old 12-08-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,488,804 times
Reputation: 2033
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Excuse me? I guess it was my imagination when a hundred and some poor countries walked out of the recent climate talks becsue they weren't discussing compensation. If you are going to combat CO@ emissions you need every nation onboard to do it and the only way you are going to get these developing nations onboard is to pay them NOT to burn fossil fuels. That's a weird view of the world to think people in these countries are going to remain poor to save the environment. They are going to use fossil fuels unless they are compensated.
A hundred and some poor countries? More hyperbole.

You don't need every nation, just the biggest emitters. China and India can only continue on for so long before the economic damage to pollution is to great bear. About ~5.8% of China's GDP is lost due to pollution directly and indirectly which amounts to ~500 billion USD per year. Regardless of climate change these countries will be forced to change how they use energy and how they view pollution.


Quote:
Like what? This was never issue here in the US in the past becsue of anthracite.
Presently it's not an issue becsue there is other sources to heat these homes.
The Chinese are using a low quality coal that produces a lot of soot and trying
to marginalize that pollution from residential sources is not something as
simple as saying lets replace it becsue you need something to replace it with .
And switching to higher quality coal will raise energy costs. Putting forth more regulations on coal in China will raise energy costs.

How do you not get that coal ain't that cheap when you stop subsidizing pollution?



Quote:
I post facts and reasonable opinions based on facts.
No you post a rehashed graph that only shows the US and a link about natural gas that you clearly didn't properly read. Or maybe you were just hoping I play dumb.

Quote:
For example I don't naively
suggest more than a billion Chinese replace the way they heat their homes
without first considering what they could replace it with.
All you got is hyperbole....

You don't think the Chinese haven't thought about it? They are a leader in investing in renewables and investing in O&G plays around the world (even here in America's plentiful O&G reserves).

Quote:
Because it's coal that is our greatest source of energy.
Until you put a price tag on the emissions, the heavy metal runoff that pollutes waterways from mining, and the severe habitat destruction of mining. We had to enact cap and trade and other regulations due to the acid rain that was occurring in the NE, Midwest, and SE due to the amount of sulfur.

I have never ONCE argued or claimed that coal will go away overnight even in this century. It will simply become less and less used over time.
 
Old 12-09-2013, 12:01 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,749,501 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
^^


yawn


claims of drought-driven declines in plant productivity, global food security refuted: Modeling errors produced exaggerated claims




https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...d-less-thought






i already posted them. They are numerous. And all assume "business as usual" emissions will warm regions such as the midwest by 7c by 2100 which is complete nonsense.


Both the canadian and hadley models do this:



Go here
climate wizard




or here

great lakes communities and ecosystems at risk | union of concerned scientists






i colored the part that matters since you tried to illustrate a moot point plots of changes in ocean heat content since the 1950′s might look dramatic with an accumulation of gazillions of joules, but the energy involved is only 1 part in 1,000 of the average energy flows in and out of the climate system. To believe this tiny energy imbalance is entirely manmade, and has never happened before, requires too much faith.

But i don't deny the oceans are warming and that co2 will have a role. However, the warming is not new.



new comparison of ocean temperatures reveals rise over the last century




hansen is a serious scientist to you right?


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...onsanddice.pdf


that would be defined as "catastrophic" right? But are we really headed to 3c warming in the next 75 years? Doesn't seem so. I'm not saying we won't eventually warm by that much, we probably will because i have studied paleoclimate and know that during the pliocene the earth was 3c warmer than today with atmospheric co2 levels between 365-410ppm , but the oceans are still much cooler than that time period, and there is a **** load of ice on the planet.





Do you think spencer and christy are deniers or just skeptics as all scientists should be?

How is this misrepresented?

















examining the recent slow-down in global warming | the yale forum on climate change & the media



john christy (another so-called denier) actually built climate model data sets, so his opinion on their skillfulness should be valid






i said this:




And in 2004 muller said this:



So yes, he was a believer in agw, when he made that video, and not a denier, but i used the term "lukewarm" as in not knowing what contributions of the recent warming are manmade, and how long intermittent cooling periods may mask longer term warming.



Above i quote him from 2004 saying the exact opposite. He did indeed believe in agw. Actually he distinguishes the "skeptics" from the "deniers".



He was skeptical of how the hockey stick was created. Not ever a denier that man has made a contribution to the earth warming over the last 50 years.



The best reconstruction only examines temperature records from 1800 on wards. So how does this validate a tree ring proxy study that reconstructs temperatures for the last 1000 years is beyond me. If you are trying to convince me that it has warmed since then, you are preaching to the choir. I know we have warmed. However putting comparing tree rings with actual instruments on the same graph gives you the illusion, that they are of the same accuracy which they are not.

Here is a video of the best data reconstruction
berkeley earth
tldr
 
Old 12-09-2013, 12:09 AM
 
3,533 posts, read 2,170,235 times
Reputation: 1886
It's hard to buy into global warming when I am sitting here in San Diego and it's currently 21 degrees. Now, yes I am at 4000 feet, but I am on a farm, and we need to monitor weather trends for the proper care of out livestock and crops. This is the second year in a row that the 20 year winter weather temperatures and precipitation curve shifted 6 weeks early.

In 2003 and 2007 we had a heat wave and Santa Ana winds that caused catastrophic wildfire destruction, the same week, October 28, this year we had our first snowfall. Last year we had our first snow on December 9, the 20 year norm for our area is February 20. according to a radio broadcast this week, the NWS reports that for the first time in 20 years, California will have more record lows for 2013 than record highs. Conversely, we usually have a good 10-14 days in the 105-115 range in early August, we rarely broke 100 this year.

Does this really mean squat, no, but something is up.
 
Old 12-09-2013, 02:53 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
5,709 posts, read 2,614,675 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretsky99 View Post
We all know GW is complete "BS" but trying telling that to GW cults.

Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating | New York Post
NASA says 97% of all climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
Climate Change: Consensus

NASA also says global warming could stop deep ocean currents and cover North America with ice 365 days out of the year.
A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


But ExxonMobile, Fox news, and Rush radio say "Global warming is a hoax." (they say this because if we do something about global warming large corporations will loose money.)
Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Blog | Media Matters for America



So who will you trust in matters of global warming?

a.) 97% of climate scientists and NASA.
b.) ExxonMobile, Fox news, and Rush radio.

a. or b. ?
 
Old 12-09-2013, 03:06 AM
 
2 posts, read 1,062 times
Reputation: 10
The first question I have is do human beings have the ability to change the global climate on purpose if we tried?

I am very skeptical of that. The earth has had lots of climate change over it's history, and mankind to me seems incapable of upsetting the entire global climate. The earth is vast, and we are small.

What I think is going on here is that people who measure temperatures start believing that some outside force "causes" the phenomena they are merely measuring. It's sort of like watching people keep track of the numbers that a roulette wheel produces, then try and predict the next spin of the wheel.

One thing is for certain, though. If the average global temperature doesn't start rising again very soon, they will have to find a new way to earn a living. Sooner or later reality always crashes the party on the doomsday predictions.
 
Old 12-09-2013, 03:35 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,666,192 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric View Post
It's hard to buy into global warming when I am sitting here in San Diego and it's currently 21 degrees. Now, yes I am at 4000 feet, but I am on a farm, and we need to monitor weather trends for the proper care of out livestock and crops. This is the second year in a row that the 20 year winter weather temperatures and precipitation curve shifted 6 weeks early.

In 2003 and 2007 we had a heat wave and Santa Ana winds that caused catastrophic wildfire destruction, the same week, October 28, this year we had our first snowfall. Last year we had our first snow on December 9, the 20 year norm for our area is February 20. according to a radio broadcast this week, the NWS reports that for the first time in 20 years, California will have more record lows for 2013 than record highs. Conversely, we usually have a good 10-14 days in the 105-115 range in early August, we rarely broke 100 this year.

Does this really mean squat, no, but something is up.
The pacific drives most of the weather variables in North America..... For now, the Pacific is stuck in a stubborn La Nada state....

"Without an El Niño or La Niña signal present, other, less predictable, climatic factors will govern fall, winter and spring weather conditions," said climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Long-range forecasts are most successful during El Niño and La Niña episodes. The 'in between' ocean state, La Nada, is the dominant condition, and is frustrating for long-range forecasters. It's like driving without a decent road map -- it makes forecasting difficult."

'La Nada' Climate Pattern Lingers in the Pacific - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
 
Old 12-09-2013, 06:41 AM
 
1,143 posts, read 869,382 times
Reputation: 720
Quote:
So who will you trust in matters of global warming?
c) Myself using common sense.
 
Old 12-09-2013, 08:36 AM
 
3,509 posts, read 1,605,223 times
Reputation: 1507
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The pacific drives most of the weather variables in North America..... For now, the Pacific is stuck in a stubborn La Nada state....

"Without an El Niño or La Niña signal present, other, less predictable, climatic factors will govern fall, winter and spring weather conditions," said climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Long-range forecasts are most successful during El Niño and La Niña episodes. The 'in between' ocean state, La Nada, is the dominant condition, and is frustrating for long-range forecasters. It's like driving without a decent road map -- it makes forecasting difficult."

'La Nada' Climate Pattern Lingers in the Pacific - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

La Nada is 'stubborn'? Did it miss the "science is settled" memo?
 
Old 12-09-2013, 08:43 AM
 
37,069 posts, read 38,262,371 times
Reputation: 14831
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
A hundred and some poor countries? More hyperbole.

You don't need every nation, just the biggest emitters.
Led by China... FYI China is not offering caps but lower "carbon intensity". Carbon intensity is calculated using carbon emissions vs. GDP. By increasing efficiency you lower carbon intensity and that is something they will want to do anyway. They aren't offering anything becsue total carbon emissions can increase.


Quote:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...tion-un-warsaw

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia, the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.


The orchestrated move by the G77 and China bloc of 132 countries came during talks about "loss and damage" – how countries should respond to climate impacts that are difficult or impossible to adapt to, such as typhoon Haiyan.

Quote:
And switching to higher quality coal will raise energy costs.
Presumably they will get this coal from the tooth fairy?




Quote:
No you post a rehashed graph that only shows the US and a link about natural gas that you clearly didn't properly read. Or maybe you were just hoping I play dumb.
The first graph is alive graph and updated weekly. If you come back to this page a in a week and refresh the page it will be a new and updated graph. The second graph is specific to this month and just published so I don;t know where you are getting rehashed from.




Quote:
All you got is hyperbole....

You don't think the Chinese haven't thought about it? They are a leader in investing in renewables and investing in O&G plays around the world (even here in America's plentiful O&G reserves).
All you apparently have is suggesting my comments are hyperbole. Yes they are investing in renewable for two reasons, firstly they don't have much choice since they have very limited supply of coal compared to their population. They have to do something over the next few decades but in the menatime they put online a new coal plant every feew weeks and continue to expand their usage of coals their primary source of energy.

The other reason is so they can sell this expensive tech back to us since the demand is driven by politics. Your tax doallrs are actually subsidizing Chinese factories making solar panels ironically powered mostly by coal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top