Time to take CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUSLY


taxslave
+4
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

It is not a zero sum situation.
Following the evidence. Yes...Climate change is an ongoing possess. So perhaps the terminology should be re evaluated. for what is perceived as going on now. .

Think of climate like tides. It is always changing. The problem is we have a bunch of people with the attention span of a gnat in charge and they expect that everything happens in their time frame. Even the news can only be fed to them in 40 character bites or they loose interest.
The bigger problem is the truthers are distracting us from what is really necesssary and that is cleaning up our shit. Especially in third world countries. Destroying our economy will not help them but it will hurt us and actually move us backwards.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Please explain how you ans I putting money into general revenue will do anything to abate climate change?


Think of it as protection money. You pay and people leave you alone. Apple learned that they can pretty much do whatever they want as long as they say the right things, green wash, and make donations. Now, one of the worlds biggest polluters gets to hold the moral high ground.


Tesla is doing the same thing. How environmentally sound is their mining operations in Africa? They're using child labor and slave labor for crying out loud.
 
petros
+3
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

It is not a zero sum situation.
Following the evidence. Yes...Climate change is an ongoing possess. So perhaps the terminology should be re evaluated. for what is perceived as going on now. .

Evidence points to the sun and geomagnetics.
 
petros
+2
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

You know where to move your fields when the crops start failing where they are at the moment. It doesn't take much of a push to get people to move to where the fields produce 2 crops/yr rather than 1.
Currently science is running in circles for some reason. More money or keep us stupid are the only reasons to do it at all.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. The first ever audit of the world’s most important temperature data set (HadCRUT4) has found it to be so riddled with errors and “freakishly improbable data” that it is effectively useless.
From the IPCC:

Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Crops have failed. They are under snow.

In AB 60% can't be harvested.
 
EagleSmack
+5
#35
If we had only made those electronic bank transfers when we had the chance.




I must say... the absolute fury from the Alarmists is popcorn worthy. No country is keeping to their obligations.



And under Trump's leadership the U.S is leading the way in reducing carbon emissions and we pulled out of the useless Paris Accord!
Last edited by EagleSmack; Oct 10th, 2018 at 12:43 PM..
 
MHz
#36
I would think exports will still be filled and any shortage will come out of the grains meant for Canadians. The rest of the month will be warmer so the crops can still be picked up. The seeds should have been mature before the snow so this is just killing the plant like the fall spray of Round-up does.


I would think it would be the mega farms that got caught with their pants down rather than it being the smaller farms. How many won't even try and just collect the insurance money?
 
petros
+5
#37
Are you really this clueless or ?
 
Jinentonix
+4
#38
Quote:

so.......perhaps the deniers could provide SCIENTIFIC DATA that climate change is not happening.

Nobody here is saying it isn't happening. What's up for debate is just how much is human caused. There are so many mechanisms at work when it comes to the environment and climate that to claim climate change is human caused is kind'a disingenuous.

As for my previous post, I must apologize for the grievous error I made. I said humans only generate 30 mega-tonnes per year. Don't know what I was thinking, the number is 30 giga-tonnes.
However, volcanic output from venting (not eruptions) is around 200 gigatonnes per year.

But again, if we take the UN claim that we need to reduce our emissions by 1 billion tons per year, then our starting point is 30 billion tonnes. A 1 billion a year reduction doesn't seem like it'll do much until it's too late, according to the fear-mongering.

Let me ask you Ocean Breeze, do you support ideas like putting an end to fast food dumps and other chain restaurants? Or do you support their employees getting paid a living wage?
 
MHz
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Are you really this clueless or ?

https://www.producer.com/2018/07/cro...-with-markets/


You run your combine with no fire insurance too?
 
MHz
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

Nobody here is saying it isn't happening. What's up for debate is just how much is human caused. There are so many mechanisms at work when it comes to the environment and climate that to claim climate change is human caused is kind'a disingenuous.

Get an estimate how much the volcano in Hawaii let into the air compared to human activity if you want to see how much of a sham it is.
 
petros
+3
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

https://www.producer.com/2018/07/cro...-with-markets/
You run your combine with no fire insurance too?

Would it kill you to try making sense?
 
Danbones
+2
#42
I wish someone would just take climate change...away...
 
MHz
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Would it kill you to try making sense?

The problem is at your end rather than on my end. That makes it an unsolvable problem.
 
petros
#44
Who said it was problematic? Are you admitting to something?
 
coldstream
#45
It seems that the Northern Hemisphere might be experiencing a cyclical cooling phase. They tend to go in 400 - 500 year cycles and the last Mini Ice Age in Europe lasted from approx. 1300 to 1800 (no one knows what caused it, but it definitely wasn't atmospheric carbon). We might have topped out and are headed back down in temp.

Hurricanes and storms in general are Cold Weather events. The massive storms recorded in the Caribbean in the 16th and 17th Centuries were a product of a cooler climate. So Hurricanes Michael and Florence had nothing to do with Global Warming much less Anthropenic Global Warming. If the world was uniformly heating up we should be seeing a moderation of extreme weather. We are in fact seeing the opposite.
Last edited by coldstream; Oct 11th, 2018 at 01:17 PM..
 
petros
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

(no one knows what caused it, but it definitely wasn't atmospheric carbon). We might have topped out and are headed back down in temp.

Solar Minimum
 
10larry
+1
#47
Livestock gets about 1/2 blame for ghg emissions, add in feed production, transport to wholesale, market, table n' gastrointestinal meds and it pushes the percentage well past 50. If ipcc pushed a veggie diet they'd not only save the planet but earn humanitarian merit. They would of course have to impose a flatulence tax to keep us from being tempted to sample steak or pork chops.
I know this sounds silly but it makes as much as if not more sense than a carbon tax imo.
 
petros
#48
Corn fed long pork. Yummy.
 
MHz
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Are you admitting to something?

Only that it is hard to decide who is the biggest loser between you and Walnut.
 
petros
#50
Im glad I play such an important role in your life.
 
Bar Sinister
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

It seems that the Northern Hemisphere might be experiencing a cyclical cooling phase. They tend to go in 400 - 500 year cycles and the last Mini Ice Age in Europe lasted from approx. 1300 to 1800 (no one knows what caused it, but it definitely wasn't atmospheric carbon). We might have topped out and are headed back down in temp.

Hurricanes and storms in general are Cold Weather events. The massive storms recorded in the Caribbean in the 16th and 17th Centuries were a product of a cooler climate. So Hurricanes Michael and Florence had nothing to do with Global Warming much less Anthropenic Global Warming. If the world was uniformly heating up we should be seeing a moderation of extreme weather. We are in fact seeing the opposite.




If hurricanes are cold weather events why do the biggest occur when ocean temperatures are highest? And why do none occur in January? Sounds like you are operating with bullshit science.
 
coldstream
+3
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

If hurricanes are cold weather events why do the biggest occur when ocean temperatures are highest? And why do none occur in January? Sounds like you are operating with bullshit science.


They originate in in the Fall when the cooling currents of the Labrador and Gulf Currents intersect with the superheated Tropical Currents in the Eastern Atlantic. If you've lived in Ontario you would be aware of the violent thunderstorms that result from a cold front moving in on an extended heatwave.

I didn't make this up. It was proposed by a Climate Scientist at MIT.. Richard Lindzen. He was subjected to withering criticism by his MIT colleagues for dissenting from the accepted AGW orthodoxy that rules Academia.

Lucky for him he had tenure and some job security. No one with these views would be provided either in the current political 'climate' of higher education.
 
petros
+1
#53
https://www.wired.com/2015/03/see-bi...e-look-africa/

TO SEE THE BIRTH OF AN ATLANTIC HURRICANE, LOOK TO AFRICA

THE WINTER CRUSHED the East Coast of the US. So let us crush your dreams of spring with a gentle reminder: Hurricane season is right around the corner. And the hurricanes that will slam into the Atlantic seaboard in just a couple of months are already glints in the eyes of storms-yet-to-be-born in Africa.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially kicks off in June, but it starts over the Sahara. In the Sudanese highlands—the same place the Nile begins—sun-heated air bubbles upward and condenses into mushroom-shaped thunderheads thousands of miles high. At the same time, enormous waves of air in the upper atmosphere push those storms west, toward the Atlantic. Most of these tempests will die on the coast. But some get second lives—as tropical storms or hurricanes. That turns out to be an important connection if you're trying to predict hurricanes. New research shows that the temperature of clouds in those African storms could help meteorologists figure out which will mutate into coast-and-island-pummeling monsters on the other side of the ocean.

While these tall clouds are growing out of the high desert, a massive, oscillating atmospheric pattern called the Africa Easterly Wave is settling in thousands of feet above. It's a vast, sine wave-shaped air flow that carries weather across the Sahara, east to west. When those Sudanese thunderstorms rise, they get caught up in the flow, off to drench Africa's west coast. And there they stop; the Atlantic Ocean is cold, and thunderstorms thrive on heat.

But the Africa Easterly Wave persists, and sometimes so does the energy that used to be a thunderstorm. "And when the wave reaches the central part of the Atlantic basin, then some of the thunderstorms will start to develop again," says Robert Rogers, a meteorologist with NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory. Out in the mid-Atlantic, the water is warmer, the air more humid, and the wind stronger. And the Africa Easterly Wave's undulations spin all those conditions into a nice cyclonic spiral.

Only about one in 10 of the African storms re-emerge, though. "That's the million dollar question: What causes some of the storms in these Africa Easterly Waves to develop into a tropical cyclone?" says Jim Kossin, a climate researcher with the National Centers for Environmental Information. Even with a perfect accounting of environmental conditions in the mid-Atlantic, scientists still can't predict which storms will complete the transition.

The fate might be written in the clouds of the thunderstorms. In new research, meteorologists from Tel Aviv University used geostationary satellites to look at the thunderstorms right before they disappeared off the coast of Africa into the Atlantic. Specifically, the scientists were looking at the temperatures at the very tops of each storm's cumulonimbus clouds. Temperature is a proxy for height—clouds grow predictably colder as they rise. And the taller a cloud, the more energy it contains.

And surprise: These tall, cold clouds often prefigured later tropical storms. If the temperature of about 5 percent of the clouds in a thunderstorm drops to -58˚F mark—corresponding roughly to the maximum altitude for cumulonimbus clouds—the odds jump that it'll resurrect as a cyclone.

And when does that happen? Well, 2015 is an El Niño year, so this season could be another dud. "Then again, it only takes one hurricane to make for an awful year," says Kossin. Hurricane Andrew (the 1992 monster that flattened Miami) struck during an El Niño. No amount of prediction will ever stop a storm like Andrew (or any storm, for that matter), but right now meteorologists start tracking storms about a week before they look likely to make landfall. Looking at the cloud heights of African thunderstorms could double that lead time—and every added bit of foresight helps more people get out of the way.
 
Bar Sinister
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

They originate in in the Fall when the cooling currents of the Labrador and Gulf Currents intersect with the superheated Tropical Currents in the Eastern Atlantic. If you've lived in Ontario you would be aware of the violent thunderstorms that result from a cold front moving in on an extended heatwave.

I didn't make this up. It was proposed by a Climate Scientist at MIT.. Richard Lindzen. He was subjected to withering criticism by his MIT colleagues for dissenting from the accepted AGW orthodoxy that rules Academia.

Lucky for him he had tenure and some job security. No one with these views would be provided either in the current political 'climate' of higher education.




In other words you are using as your source a "scientist" who has no credibility with his peers. I wonder what oil company funded his research? Actually there is no need for you to check - apparently he was funded by a coal company.



BTW your scientist also does not think smoking causes lung cancer - I'm guessing he has also received a "gift" from big tobacco.



Here is a quote from Wikipedia commenting on Lindzen.



The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[76] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[77]
The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[78]
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[79] [80] [81] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[82]
The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[83] [84] However, when asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Company documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[85]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[86] Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[87]
 
Bar Sinister
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/see-bi...e-look-africa/

TO SEE THE BIRTH OF AN ATLANTIC HURRICANE, LOOK TO AFRICA

THE WINTER CRUSHED the East Coast of the US. So let us crush your dreams of spring with a gentle reminder: Hurricane season is right around the corner. And the hurricanes that will slam into the Atlantic seaboard in just a couple of months are already glints in the eyes of storms-yet-to-be-born in Africa.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially kicks off in June, but it starts over the Sahara. In the Sudanese highlands—the same place the Nile begins—sun-heated air bubbles upward and condenses into mushroom-shaped thunderheads thousands of miles high. At the same time, enormous waves of air in the upper atmosphere push those storms west, toward the Atlantic. Most of these tempests will die on the coast. But some get second lives—as tropical storms or hurricanes. That turns out to be an important connection if you're trying to predict hurricanes. New research shows that the temperature of clouds in those African storms could help meteorologists figure out which will mutate into coast-and-island-pummeling monsters on the other side of the ocean.

While these tall clouds are growing out of the high desert, a massive, oscillating atmospheric pattern called the Africa Easterly Wave is settling in thousands of feet above. It's a vast, sine wave-shaped air flow that carries weather across the Sahara, east to west. When those Sudanese thunderstorms rise, they get caught up in the flow, off to drench Africa's west coast. And there they stop; the Atlantic Ocean is cold, and thunderstorms thrive on heat.

But the Africa Easterly Wave persists, and sometimes so does the energy that used to be a thunderstorm. "And when the wave reaches the central part of the Atlantic basin, then some of the thunderstorms will start to develop again," says Robert Rogers, a meteorologist with NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory. Out in the mid-Atlantic, the water is warmer, the air more humid, and the wind stronger. And the Africa Easterly Wave's undulations spin all those conditions into a nice cyclonic spiral.

Only about one in 10 of the African storms re-emerge, though. "That's the million dollar question: What causes some of the storms in these Africa Easterly Waves to develop into a tropical cyclone?" says Jim Kossin, a climate researcher with the National Centers for Environmental Information. Even with a perfect accounting of environmental conditions in the mid-Atlantic, scientists still can't predict which storms will complete the transition.

The fate might be written in the clouds of the thunderstorms. In new research, meteorologists from Tel Aviv University used geostationary satellites to look at the thunderstorms right before they disappeared off the coast of Africa into the Atlantic. Specifically, the scientists were looking at the temperatures at the very tops of each storm's cumulonimbus clouds. Temperature is a proxy for height—clouds grow predictably colder as they rise. And the taller a cloud, the more energy it contains.

And surprise: These tall, cold clouds often prefigured later tropical storms. If the temperature of about 5 percent of the clouds in a thunderstorm drops to -58˚F mark—corresponding roughly to the maximum altitude for cumulonimbus clouds—the odds jump that it'll resurrect as a cyclone.

And when does that happen? Well, 2015 is an El Niño year, so this season could be another dud. "Then again, it only takes one hurricane to make for an awful year," says Kossin. Hurricane Andrew (the 1992 monster that flattened Miami) struck during an El Niño. No amount of prediction will ever stop a storm like Andrew (or any storm, for that matter), but right now meteorologists start tracking storms about a week before they look likely to make landfall. Looking at the cloud heights of African thunderstorms could double that lead time—and every added bit of foresight helps more people get out of the way.




2015? Hurricane Andrew? Guess the writer of that article had no way of knowing about Harvey, Maria, Florence, or Michael.
 
petros
#56
Is hurricane season something new or is it just new to you?
 
Bar Sinister
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Is hurricane season something new or is it just new to you?




One day you may actually have to stop pretending to be stupid. At least I hope it is pretending.
 
MHz
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

In other words you are using as your source a "scientist" who has no credibility with his peers. I wonder what oil company funded his research? Actually there is no need for you to check - apparently he was funded by a coal company.

The way it would work is his 'peers' would be the ones that have accepted the bribes from the coal companies.
 
taxslave
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

One day you may actually have to stop pretending to be stupid. At least I hope it is pretending.

Guess there is no hope for you then.
 
taxslave
+2
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The way it would work is his 'peers' would be the ones that have accepted the bribes from the coal companies.

His peers would be other scientists that are capable of independent rational thought instead of parroting what they are told. This would appear to be true in all branches of science.