Climate change- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 2814

Thread: Climate change

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170

    Climate change

    I'm not much of a climate change junkie but.......just think of all of the carbon emissions I am reducing by ditching my car for a bike. The Hollywood moguls can't blame me for global warming. But, shouldn't those Hollywood types take a look at themselves. For example, I read that Leonardo DiCaprio, one of Hollywood's biggest advocates of anti-global warming policies, jetted to a global climate conference in a private jet. Why not set an example and travel in coach on a commercial airliner to reduce emissions? And why doesn't Leo follow my example and ditch his cars for a bike?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Do as I say, not as I do
    Round and round we go

  3. #3
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Ah, the one thing that Trumps ( pun intended ) global warming for the elite. Having to deal with the masses.
    Maybe he has an electric jet. Lol
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,994
    And Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" and owned people. Heck, he raped one of them. You can be right, even if you do wrong.
    It is the Right of the People to Alter or to Abolish It.

  5. #5
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    But, they can also just be wrong. Pretty sure Mt. Kilauea is a gross polluter that trumps all others combined.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  6. #6
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    But, they can also just be wrong. Pretty sure Mt. Kilauea is a gross polluter that trumps all others combined.
    No its pretty clear that volcanism is not making signifcant contribution to the current warming trend:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/
    "Human industry emits 100x more CO2 than volcanic activity"


    The volcano argument is wrong in two ways:
    1) If volcanoes actually increased greenhouse gas (which they do, but not a lot of), you would need an increase in volcanism, for it to trigger an increase in greenhouse-induced warming. There is not a significant increase in volcanism in the prior 100 years.

    2) True that volcanoes are always causing pollution, but, this form of pollution tends to cool the planet, not warm it (relatively speaking volcanoes produce more particulate which blocks the sun, and less CO2 or other greenhouse gas which blocks reflected sun radiation from escaping the atmosphere).

    Adding Human-generated CO2 at the volumes we are adding is what changes the system.

  7. #7
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,943
    Here's my thing... Whether or not you believe that climate change is, at least in part, man-made (and I do), why not do what's right regardless? Minimize your footprint, think and act in an ecologically ethical manner, recycle, reuse, reduce waste, use energy saving techniques and products wherever possible. I mean, holy crap, we're treating our planet like an f-ing pig sty!
    Goya! It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Livin in an Idiocracy.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    812
    A lot of people do not take climate change seriously because their little piece of the world is "ok", for the moment. However what they fail to realize is that all the major ecosystems on the planet are interconnected in one way or another. So when one fails, it is only a matter of time before the dominoes begin tumbling.

  9. #9
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    The world is overpopulated by half. No one want's to talk about that though.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  10. #10
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    Here's my thing... Whether or not you believe that climate change is, at least in part, man-made (and I do), why not do what's right regardless? Minimize your footprint, think and act in an ecologically ethical manner, recycle, reuse, reduce waste, use energy saving techniques and products wherever possible. I mean, holy crap, we're treating our planet like an f-ing pig sty!
    Yeah.

    Visit Beijing, or SLC in the winter, and tell me that you don't want emissions regulated.

    Alternately, tell me that you want to pay MORE for products you use, like plastic bags, aluminum cans, etc. Those things are much, much cheaper after recycling as opposed to new production.

    Or, tell me that you want to poison the water you drink.

    If that fails, ask them what the main driver of instability and terrorism in the world is. Hint: not religion.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  11. #11
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Brodino View Post
    A lot of people do not take climate change seriously because their little piece of the world is "ok", for the moment. However what they fail to realize is that all the major ecosystems on the planet are interconnected in one way or another. So when one fails, it is only a matter of time before the dominoes begin tumbling.
    Yes we're already starting to see this, to some extent. Syria is seen as a purely political conflict but they have been in a severe drought for some time (a once-in-500-year event or even once-in-1000-year event). This played a major role in the civil war:

    "The drought caused 75 percent of Syria's farms to fail and 85 percent of livestock to die between 2006 and 2011, according to the United Nations. The collapse in crop yields forced as many as 1.5 million Syrians to migrate to urban centers, like Homs and Damascus. . . The Pentagon has long identified climate change as a "threat magnifier," a factor that can aggravate already existing political fault lines. And the G7 issued a report in June warning that climate change "will aggravate already fragile situations and may contribute to social upheaval and even violent conflict."


    The conflict then spilled over into global politics, caused mass migration which has increased tensions between the west and the middle-east, and significantly raised tensions between Russia and NATO.

    So even when we are directly affected by climate change, its either not that obvious, or we easily forget and / or discount it.

  12. #12
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    Yes we're already starting to see this, to some extent. Syria is seen as a purely political conflict but they have been in a severe drought for some time (a once-in-500-year event or even once-in-1000-year event). This played a major role in the civil war:

    "The drought caused 75 percent of Syria's farms to fail and 85 percent of livestock to die between 2006 and 2011, according to the United Nations. The collapse in crop yields forced as many as 1.5 million Syrians to migrate to urban centers, like Homs and Damascus. . . The Pentagon has long identified climate change as a "threat magnifier," a factor that can aggravate already existing political fault lines. And the G7 issued a report in June warning that climate change "will aggravate already fragile situations and may contribute to social upheaval and even violent conflict."


    The conflict then spilled over into global politics, caused mass migration which has increased tensions between the west and the middle-east, and significantly raised tensions between Russia and NATO.

    So even when we are directly affected by climate change, its either not that obvious, or we easily forget and / or discount it.
    Yep. Most of the major conflicts today are drought related.

    Those areas are GREAT for recruitment for terrorist organizations. Pretty easy to get a 16 year old to sign up when he's starving, and so is his family.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  13. #13
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The world is overpopulated by half. No one want's to talk about that though.
    Yup! Have any of you ever seen or know anything about the Georgia Guidestones? I think the population statement is WAAAAY off, but take a look.
    Goya! It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Livin in an Idiocracy.

  14. #14
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Wait wha...?!? Such a potentially explosive thread and all I see is good sense?! Nice! Encouraging for a change...
    It's all Here. Now.

  15. #15
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Having grown up listening to Walter Cronkite in the 1960's report the coming ice age I have to say that the flip flop has done much harm to the efforts to get the populace to buy in. The profiteers haven't helped either. How many times has the threat of "global warming" been used to create money out of thin air? Meanwhile many people view it as another scheme to redistribute wealth, usually at the expense of the people that can least afford it The e-mail scandal that had scientists conspiring to alter data? As usual, greed and self interest have sabotaged many worthy efforts, while those in power are viewed with suspicion as they continue living a life of excess while professing to tell everyone else how to live. Hypocritical? In many cases, yes. Who really needs to effect change? I don't pretend to know any answers but I can tell when someone is pissing on my leg and all too often that has been the case. Just my observation.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    Yup! Have any of you ever seen or know anything about the Georgia Guidestones? I think the population statement is WAAAAY off, but take a look.
    Thanks. I just looked it up. Interesting stuff. It is in my state too and I knew nothing about it! I agree the population figure is far from reality but if you throw in another world war with the weapons available now, it might not be far off.

  17. #17
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Yep. Most of the major conflicts today are drought related.

    Those areas are GREAT for recruitment for terrorist organizations. Pretty easy to get a 16 year old to sign up when he's starving, and so is his family.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Yup, exactly. You've probably seen it in person. Thank you for your service.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Having grown up listening to Walter Cronkite in the 1960's report the coming ice age I have to say that the flip flop has done much harm to the efforts to get the populace to buy in. The profiteers haven't helped either. How many times has the threat of "global warming" been used to create money out of thin air? Meanwhile many people view it as another scheme to redistribute wealth, usually at the expense of the people that can least afford it The e-mail scandal that had scientists conspiring to alter data? As usual, greed and self interest have sabotaged many worthy efforts, while those in power are viewed with suspicion as they continue living a life of excess while professing to tell everyone else how to live. Hypocritical? In many cases, yes. Who really needs to effect change? I don't pretend to know any answers but I can tell when someone is pissing on my leg and all too often that has been the case. Just my observation.
    Spot on. Very often if the messenger is flawed in any way then the message is discounted and forgotten often to society's detriment. I do not think any one person, group or country has all the answers right now but with dialogue, and we the citizens of this planet actively engaging in our communities and beyond, there may be hope.
    Last edited by Brodino; 06-02-2017 at 03:01 PM. Reason: Spelling

  19. #19
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,844
    I think Leonardo should be allowed to fly First Class on the commercial airliner. He's earned it.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,033
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    And why doesn't Leo follow my example and ditch his cars for a bike?
    Is it possible he's a hypocrite?

    I don't understand why humans expect the world to stay the same, just so that it's convenient for them.

    Look at earth's history, it's pretty dramatic. Not much of the land we walk on today is where it used to be, we know that some places have been much hotter, lots of places have been much colder, animals have been much bigger. Yip, a lot has changed and it's worth remembering that we had nothing to do with it. The world threw out all that upheaval all on its lonesome.

    So it should play nice now, because we say so? We're flees on a dog, just along for the ride. Personally, I reckon the dog is about to scratch and we aren't remotely ready.

  21. #21
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,943
    Most population scientist agree that between fresh water supplies and available crop space, the earth will handle a max of approx. 9.5B people. When I was born in 1962, we were at approx. 3.5B. Here we are only 55 years later and have more than exceeded the 7B mark. Given that rate of growth, we should be at the bursting point in 10 to 15 years, tops.

    Ripe for a catastrophic event, the likes of which have not been seen in human history. Unless of course, the all-seeing, all-knowing deity, who loves us and wants us to be happy, intervenes.

    Where's that popcorn thread?
    Goya! It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Livin in an Idiocracy.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,033
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    When I was born in 1962, we were at approx. 3.5B. Here we are only 55 years later and have more than exceeded the 7B mark. Given that rate of growth, we should be at the bursting point in 10 to 15 years, tops.
    If only they would quite trying to save all those starving Africans the problem would be solved eh?

  23. #23
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    Ripe for a catastrophic event, the likes of which have not been seen in human history.



    It is happening now, in slow motion.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It is happening now, in slow motion.
    It's scary as hell and I really worry about what's going to happen for my kids and their kids.

  25. #25
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    It's scary as hell and I really worry about what's going to happen for my kids and their kids.


    Yep. And it's pure folly to think we can stop it.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Yep. And it's pure folly to think we can stop it.
    I don't think we can stop it, I think we can mitigate it somewhat, but for the most part humans are stupid and shortsighted and won't do anything at all until it's too late.

  27. #27
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Having grown up listening to Walter Cronkite in the 1960's report the coming ice age I have to say that the flip flop has done much harm to the efforts to get the populace to buy in. The profiteers haven't helped either. How many times has the threat of "global warming" been used to create money out of thin air? Meanwhile many people view it as another scheme to redistribute wealth, usually at the expense of the people that can least afford it The e-mail scandal that had scientists conspiring to alter data? As usual, greed and self interest have sabotaged many worthy efforts, while those in power are viewed with suspicion as they continue living a life of excess while professing to tell everyone else how to live. Hypocritical? In many cases, yes. Who really needs to effect change? I don't pretend to know any answers but I can tell when someone is pissing on my leg and all too often that has been the case. Just my observation.
    I'm not trying to be a jerk the but 'Ice Age' story is really a straw man - propped up as evidence that science predicts all kinds of things and then easily knocked over because it was wrong.

    The global cooling stuff was a limited set of articles by a few scientists in the early 70s, and never came anywhere near the magnitude of scientific consensus and evidence that we have for global warming. Its like comparing a 7 y.o's little league baseball team to the winner of last years World Series, they are orders of magnitude different in what they are.

    Its similar with the email scandal - extremely small in the grand scheme. Are thousands of scientists from a hundred different countries all conspiring to falsify data? When data and conclusions are wrong, there is significant motive for other scientists to prove it and it comes out.

    Scientists are an introverted, egotistical, skeptical bunch who silently compete fiercely with each other for fame and notoriety and love shoving it their competitors faces when they are truly wrong. Those who successfully prove things wrong, going against what was thought to be settled science, get book deals, grants, company investment in their labs - there is great motive to do it - it's a self-regulating market of ideas. Do you really think they are all colluding? Why do we not have dissenting scientists coming out all over to reveal and refute it all over the world? There are dissenters but its a small percentage. One email scandal is your smoking gun for the whole thing?

    Secondly, what you are doing trying to refute science by anecdote. The whole point of science is to collect and analyze data, present it as evidence, with a detailed write-up of your methods and how you reached your conclusions, such that anyone can recreate and/or refute your conclusions. Over time, as other scientists collect data that agrees or disagrees with that data, we either reach consensus or we don't.

    What we have on climate change is a very strong consensus across many scientific disciplines . . . sure there are still disputes, but there are always disputes in the scientific community about almost everything - the presence of those disputes isn't proof that the entire thing is false, you must consider the preponderance of evidence: which, on climate, points very strongly towards anthropogenic global warming.

    The 'global cooling' argument, and the email scandal, doesn't try to do any of that - it tries to refute mountains of science with a story about how science was once wrong. Science was wrong about many things for years until science proved otherwise, this is its purpose for existing. Please, if you want to refute science, do it with science, not anecdote.

  28. #28
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    The Paris Accords are a joke with no punchline. It accomplishes nothing other make some activists feel good.

    Whether the US stays in or pulls out will make no difference to climate change.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  29. #29
    Fart smeller
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    17,510
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    It's scary as hell and I really worry about what's going to happen for my kids and their kids.
    Part of the reason I never had kids.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

    Heather Heyer

  30. #30
    Fart smeller
    Reputation: Finch Platte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    17,510
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The Paris Accords are a joke with no punchline. It accomplishes nothing other make some activists feel good.

    Whether the US stays in or pulls out will make no difference to climate change.
    What? Are you serious?
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

    Heather Heyer

  31. #31
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The Paris Accords are a joke with no punchline. It accomplishes nothing other make some activists feel good.

    Whether the US stays in or pulls out will make no difference to climate change.
    Trump misrepresented the degrees data yesterday. The Paris accord has more temperature benefit than he indicated:

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18S6L0

    "If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work."

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    No its pretty clear that volcanism is not making signifcant contribution to the current warming trend:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/
    "Human industry emits 100x more CO2 than volcanic activity"


    The volcano argument is wrong in two ways:
    1) If volcanoes actually increased greenhouse gas (which they do, but not a lot of), you would need an increase in volcanism, for it to trigger an increase in greenhouse-induced warming. There is not a significant increase in volcanism in the prior 100 years.

    2) True that volcanoes are always causing pollution, but, this form of pollution tends to cool the planet, not warm it (relatively speaking volcanoes produce more particulate which blocks the sun, and less CO2 or other greenhouse gas which blocks reflected sun radiation from escaping the atmosphere).

    Adding Human-generated CO2 at the volumes we are adding is what changes the system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    I'm not trying to be a jerk the but 'Ice Age' story is really a straw man - propped up as evidence that science predicts all kinds of things and then easily knocked over because it was wrong.

    The global cooling stuff was a limited set of articles by a few scientists in the early 70s, and never came anywhere near the magnitude of scientific consensus and evidence that we have for global warming. Its like comparing a 7 y.o's little league baseball team to the winner of last years World Series, they are orders of magnitude different in what they are.

    Its similar with the email scandal - extremely small in the grand scheme. Are thousands of scientists from a hundred different countries all conspiring to falsify data? When data and conclusions are wrong, there is significant motive for other scientists to prove it and it comes out.

    Scientists are an introverted, egotistical, skeptical bunch who silently compete fiercely with each other for fame and notoriety and love shoving it their competitors faces when they are truly wrong. Those who successfully prove things wrong, going against what was thought to be settled science, get book deals, grants, company investment in their labs - there is great motive to do it - it's a self-regulating market of ideas. Do you really think they are all colluding? Why do we not have dissenting scientists coming out all over to reveal and refute it all over the world? There are dissenters but its a small percentage. One email scandal is your smoking gun for the whole thing?

    Secondly, what you are doing trying to refute science by anecdote. The whole point of science is to collect and analyze data, present it as evidence, with a detailed write-up of your methods and how you reached your conclusions, such that anyone can recreate and/or refute your conclusions. Over time, as other scientists collect data that agrees or disagrees with that data, we either reach consensus or we don't.

    What we have on climate change is a very strong consensus across many scientific disciplines . . . sure there are still disputes, but there are always disputes in the scientific community about almost everything - the presence of those disputes isn't proof that the entire thing is false, you must consider the preponderance of evidence: which, on climate, points very strongly towards anthropogenic global warming.

    The 'global cooling' argument, and the email scandal, doesn't try to do any of that - it tries to refute mountains of science with a story about how science was once wrong. Science was wrong about many things for years until science proved otherwise, this is its purpose for existing. Please, if you want to refute science, do it with science, not anecdote.
    These are the best posts I've read in ages here on MTBR *golf clap*

    Quote Originally Posted by Finch Platte View Post
    Part of the reason I never had kids.
    Yep!

  33. #33
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    I'm not trying to be a jerk the but 'Ice Age' story is really a straw man - propped up as evidence that science predicts all kinds of things and then easily knocked over because it was wrong.

    The global cooling stuff was a limited set of articles by a few scientists in the early 70s, and never came anywhere near the magnitude of scientific consensus and evidence that we have for global warming. Its like comparing a 7 y.o's little league baseball team to the winner of last years World Series, they are orders of magnitude different in what they are.

    Its similar with the email scandal - extremely small in the grand scheme. Are thousands of scientists from a hundred different countries all conspiring to falsify data? When data and conclusions are wrong, there is significant motive for other scientists to prove it and it comes out.

    Scientists are an introverted, egotistical, skeptical bunch who silently compete fiercely with each other for fame and notoriety and love shoving it their competitors faces when they are truly wrong. Those who successfully prove things wrong, going against what was thought to be settled science, get book deals, grants, company investment in their labs - there is great motive to do it - it's a self-regulating market of ideas. Do you really think they are all colluding? Why do we not have dissenting scientists coming out all over to reveal and refute it all over the world? There are dissenters but its a small percentage. One email scandal is your smoking gun for the whole thing?

    Secondly, what you are doing trying to refute science by anecdote. The whole point of science is to collect and analyze data, present it as evidence, with a detailed write-up of your methods and how you reached your conclusions, such that anyone can recreate and/or refute your conclusions. Over time, as other scientists collect data that agrees or disagrees with that data, we either reach consensus or we don't.

    What we have on climate change is a very strong consensus across many scientific disciplines . . . sure there are still disputes, but there are always disputes in the scientific community about almost everything - the presence of those disputes isn't proof that the entire thing is false, you must consider the preponderance of evidence: which, on climate, points very strongly towards anthropogenic global warming.

    The 'global cooling' argument, and the email scandal, doesn't try to do any of that - it tries to refute mountains of science with a story about how science was once wrong. Science was wrong about many things for years until science proved otherwise, this is its purpose for existing. Please, if you want to refute science, do it with science, not anecdote.




    If you re-read what I wrote you'll discover that I am not trying to refute science, I am simply pointing out why so many people have issues with the entire global warming issue. I never made any argument for or against.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  34. #34
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,943
    So, for those of you that doubt man-made climate change or that we can do anything to positively impact it, do you reuse, recycle, minimize impact, etc?

    I ask because I know a guy who refuses to recycle his glass, aluminum or paper, because... Well, I'm not sure why. He doesn't separate his trash, even though we all have recycle cans as part of our trash pick up. He even gets pissed off if he sees someone picking out his recyclables. Me? I really don't give a shit if someone picks through the recycle bin to make a few bucks off of the stuff that I'm too lazy to take in myself.
    Goya! It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Livin in an Idiocracy.

  35. #35
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The Paris Accords are a joke with no punchline. It accomplishes nothing other make some activists feel good.

    Whether the US stays in or pulls out will make no difference to climate change.



    It will help things but as usual it is a program that will be rife with corruption reducing it's effectiveness.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It will help things but as usual it is a program that will be rife with corruption reducing it's effectiveness.
    You pretty much just described every government program ever


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  37. #37
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    If you re-read what I wrote you'll discover that I am not trying to refute science, I am simply pointing out why so many people have issues with the entire global warming issue. I never made any argument for or against.
    The "issues" most people have with it are generally not based on science (observations, reviewing the literature, etc) but their own biases.

    They aren't seeking out much more than a Facebook or other social media post, which of course has been carefully curated to be displayed for them, on the page of a like-minded friend, using a skillfully designed algorithm.

    I would love it if the theory was proved wrong tomorrow. Why? Because, as part of my graduate education, I studied large scale land cover change. And if what people far smarter than me are right, it's going to be a bumpy ride. I think we'd all prefer that not happen. There are no college professors running their hands gleefully at the thought of glaciers or ice caps melting. And, there is very little money in studying this theory now; the pool is small and shallow, and divided enough ways, most people aren't getting much more than a toe in the pool. In terms of grant/research money, they'd be better off if their research proved global warming DIDN'T exist. But, available data (ice cores, pollen in lake sediment, etc) does not bear that out.

    Also, in my field (remote sensing, phenology) and most others in the scientific community, peer review is pretty brutal. Some people exist simply to tear others down. If there were serious flaws with any paper, they would have been retracted long ago.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  38. #38
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It will help things but as usual it is a program that will be rife with corruption reducing it's effectiveness.
    I won't argue with you there. I don't see any alternative though (to governments addressing climate change). Companies can try but if they cede competitive advantage their shareholders replace the leadership. Consumers play a role but not enough. All of us would have to stop buying anything plastic from china.

  39. #39
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    Trump misrepresented the degrees data yesterday. The Paris accord has more temperature benefit than he indicated:

    Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say | Reuters

    "If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work."
    It will not make any difference because most other nations will take no actions either. They will give lip service and proclaim they are good guys but take no meaningful steps. A few will actually do something, most won't. The biggest emitters have the most to lose in economic growth and will not hurt themselves. Putin is already indicating he will not restrict Russia's economic growth to meet the Accords. China will do so only to the extent of cleaning up their own internal pollution problem. India will most likely talk the talk but not walk the walk. Same for the EU.
    Even if everyone played in the sandbox nicely and followed the intent of the accords it would only slow the growth to 2c -- a level that will still cause the predicted long term problems.

    To halt any further increases the global emissions would need to drop to 1950 level. Since the world population is now 4x what it was in 1950 this would mean the world would need 1/4 the per capita emissions of 1950. Feel like becoming Amish? Ending private ownership of automobiles? Want government panels to determine how large a home you are allowed to live in or how many electric devices you are allowed to own? Apply to the government for the license to have a child? That would of course only stop the increase. It would not roll back to a stable climate. Some models show we are past the tipping point and no action however draconian will cause a roll back.

    Climate change is inevitable. All the accords, all the cloth bags, electric cars, and carbon taxes on the planet will not stop it. It is happening and there is nothing that can be done except slightly slow the rate of change.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  40. #40
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It will help things but as usual it is a program that will be rife with corruption reducing it's effectiveness.
    So we should just rely on the good nature of corporations to protect us?

    I used to work at Super Fund sites. I know how much the average corporation cares about the health of those who don't directly impact their quarterly earnings statements.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  41. #41
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    So we should just rely on the good nature of corporations to protect us?

    I used to work at Super Fund sites. I know how much the average corporation cares about the health of those who don't directly impact their quarterly earnings statements.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


    That is not at all what I'm suggesting. I do suggest that most of the money winds up lining someones pockets. Maybe some active oversight should come along with the funding for a change? But that won't happen, a nod and a wink is the only way this thing got passed in the first place. To suggest anything other than that is laughable and part of the reason people do not believe in these types of solutions.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,033
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    It's scary as hell and I really worry about what's going to happen for my kids and their kids.
    I don't think our kids are likely to have kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finch Platte View Post
    Part of the reason I never had kids.
    Just you keep telling yourself that ;0)

    Anyway, I live in Scotland. Global warming? About time!

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Not going to have kids because of the world today is a fuked argument. If you think you are so smart, and are so sensitive, and thoughtful that you're not going to have children, the only thing you are doing is instead filling the world with stupid thoughtless people who couldn't give a shit. Because they are dropping kids all over the place. But at least that's an area where you can make a difference. Because as far as global warming.....

    I liken gw to a new religion. If you can look at, oh, it's been getting warmer since the industrial revolution, it must be us. Then you have to forget or dismiss, or make up reasons to discount all the rest of proven history to make that theory work. That's more like religion than science. If people who don't believe get belittled, persecuted, and labeled....
    We think we're so smart that we have it all figured out. Now we think we can figure out to how much of a degree we can effect global temps. It's completely laughable.
    If for nothing else we make a cleaner, more responsible planet for the future, I'm all for a curbing or eliminating man made greenhouse gases.
    Round and round we go

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    the only thing you are doing is instead filling the world with stupid thoughtless people who couldn't give a shit. Because they are dropping kids all over the place.
    So anyone who has a brain is supposed to try to "out-****" the dumb people? Well it's no so much the ****ing that counts its the pregnancies, but, uhhh, when you are "competing" with people that don't understand how birth control works you're really showing up to a gunfight with a pitbull. In other words, Idiocracy is a documentary.

  45. #45
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    I get really annoyed when I see the talking heads on various TV shows 'discussing' these issues, and you have people on one side expounding that the renewable industries will create more wealth than fossil fuel industries, so this is how we must go. I take issue with the fact that it always comes down to the economic argument, which should not be the only valid one. The fact of the matter is that our efforts should have been accelerated years ago to pursue all possible avenues of renewable energy options, even if this had cost, or would cost us in the short term. We should be the leaders in these efforts and not leave it up to the Danes, the Germans, the Norwegians and so on. Any so called civilized society should be doing all it can to ensure quality of life for itself and its descendants, and this is something that our greed and self-centeredness has dressed up, denied, or otherwise ignored in the feathering of our own nests.
    Some are doing all they can, and good for them, but it's beyond time for the rest of us to follow suit. The arguments that say: "That country is just going to cheat so it ain't worth us doing it", or "that guy next door ain't doing anything with his trash so I'm not going to bother" just don't cut it any more. We all have to do something now, however small, it all helps. If the however many billion people all did something, we would be much better off. If nothing else, it may buy us the time we may need for "Science" to come up with better and more workable solutions.
    Many will dismiss these sentiments and dig more holes and buy more guns for the coming apocalypse. personally I would rather live in a world where we are striving to make a better place for all to live that live in a fukking hole in the ground in fear. Sometimes the ignorant insularity of this country, and the country I came from, England, leaves me aghast.
    It's all Here. Now.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by jackbombay View Post
    So anyone who has a brain is supposed to try to "out-****" the dumb people? Well it's no so much the ****ing that counts its the pregnancies, but, uhhh, when you are "competing" with people that don't understand how birth control works you're really showing up to a gunfight with a pitbull. In other words, Idiocracy is a documentary.
    Not what I'm saying.
    Humans evolved so successfully in large part because of our smarts. In the past, when we had real survival issues, the smarter among us were better able to raise their offspring to maturity. Which in turn made people, as a whole, smarter. People that got along well with others in return got help from others to raise their children to maturity. Which made people, as a whole, more kind and thoughtful.
    Now, with life comparatively much easier, that's no longer the case, real, and has consequences.
    If you want to ignore that, which should be clear, obvious, and make sense to someone with a "brain", and instead turn it into whatever you did up there....have fun in your empty nest, while waiting for the end of the world.
    Round and round we go

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    I get really annoyed when I see the talking heads on various TV shows 'discussing' these issues, and you have people on one side expounding that the renewable industries will create more wealth than fossil fuel industries, so this is how we must go. I take issue with the fact that it always comes down to the economic argument, which should not be the only valid one. The fact of the matter is that our efforts should have been accelerated years ago to pursue all possible avenues of renewable energy options, even if this had cost, or would cost us in the short term. We should be the leaders in these efforts and not leave it up to the Danes, the Germans, the Norwegians and so on. Any so called civilized society should be doing all it can to ensure quality of life for itself and its descendants, and this is something that our greed and self-centeredness has dressed up, denied, or otherwise ignored in the feathering of our own nests.
    Some are doing all they can, and good for them, but it's beyond time for the rest of us to follow suit. The arguments that say: "That country is just going to cheat so it ain't worth us doing it", or "that guy next door ain't doing anything with his trash so I'm not going to bother" just don't cut it any more. We all have to do something now, however small, it all helps. If the however many billion people all did something, we would be much better off. If nothing else, it may buy us the time we may need for "Science" to come up with better and more workable solutions.
    Many will dismiss these sentiments and dig more holes and buy more guns for the coming apocalypse. personally I would rather live in a world where we are striving to make a better place for all to live that live in a fukking hole in the ground in fear. Sometimes the ignorant insularity of this country, and the country I came from, England, leaves me aghast.
    Good stuff rockerc
    We need to have more open minded opinions and outlooks like this to move forward in a productive way.
    Round and round we go

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    In general, I'm not a fan of anything liberal. However, in this case, I don't understand the resistance of those on the right to reducing carbon emissions. It seems to me that fossil fuels are the past and that renewable fuels are the future. Why do we want to keep trashing the planet? Also, eliminating fossil fuels will allow us to end reliance on those Middle Eastern countries that hate us.

    The argument that I saw for Trump pulling out of the Paris accords was that the agreement wasn't about global warming but was more about redistributing American wealth all around the world. Sometimes, its hard to know who exactly is telling the truth.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Find it hard to believe, understand, comprehend, that not that long ago we were killing people because we thought they were witches, and sacrificing people for the the gods. In a world were when weather was good it was because God was happy with us. That now we have it all figured out.
    We can't control and manipulate nature to our benefit and then wonder where all the wildlife is going. Can't have it both ways, all the time. The common ground is somewhere in the middle, and imo most people these days only prop up and support one side of any given argument.
    When you're talking, typing, whatever, you are only communicating what you already know, or think you know. When you're listening you may learn something.
    It amuses me when I hear people talk about the climate as if they are an authority. Yet when you bring up things that are pretty much rock solid and proven, like the unpredictability of solar cycles, Milankovitch cycle, 800 year lag, the ocean's oscillations, etc., they don't have a clue or even better have never heard of them. But instead look at the last 130 years, and regurgitate talking points. That's a clever conversation that leaves out the clever
    Round and round we go

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    253
    I live in Montana. There is evidence to show that this was a tropical paradise at one time and covered in ice during the glacial periods. I don't think there were enough humans at either time to influence world wide climate. So why is the present climate considered the norm?
    At the beginning of the global warming theories coming on the heels of the global cooling theories, two models emerged. One- warming will dry the planet and cause droughts, two- warming will evaporate more water causing more rain. So now the desert/drought theory is pushed because it is easier to control the masses with fear.
    Solyndra- redistribution of wealth to the connected sold on the premise of saving the planet. 535 million dollars, FBI investigation never happened. Many other similar stories out there.
    In my neighborhood, our yard has a cloths line to dry laundry- don't see many others. Many will talk the talk, how many walk the walk?
    Global warming, another means to control the masses.
    Started riding bikes at 5yo and loved everything about it, still do.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    In general, I'm not a fan of anything liberal. However, in this case, I don't understand the resistance of those on the right to reducing carbon emissions. It seems to me that fossil fuels are the past and that renewable fuels are the future. Why do we want to keep trashing the planet? Also, eliminating fossil fuels will allow us to end reliance on those Middle Eastern countries that hate us.

    The argument that I saw for Trump pulling out of the Paris accords was that the agreement wasn't about global warming but was more about redistributing American wealth all around the world. Sometimes, its hard to know who exactly is telling the truth.
    Agreed, even thou I'm on the other side of things. I'm as liberal and progressive as they come. It saddens me that such an interesting topic has turned so political and biased. It goes deep. Way down to the foundation. Down to the institutions that are informing and training the scientist of tomorrow. Too much omg the world is going to end drama, and too much confidence and importance put into human's intelligence, and understanding
    Round and round we go

  52. #52
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Not going to have kids because of the world today is a fuked argument. If you think you are so smart, and are so sensitive, and thoughtful that you're not going to have children, the only thing you are doing is instead filling the world with stupid thoughtless people who couldn't give a shit. Because they are dropping kids all over the place. But at least that's an area where you can make a difference. Because as far as global warming.....

    I liken gw to a new religion. If you can look at, oh, it's been getting warmer since the industrial revolution, it must be us. Then you have to forget or dismiss, or make up reasons to discount all the rest of proven history to make that theory work. That's more like religion than science. If people who don't believe get belittled, persecuted, and labeled....
    We think we're so smart that we have it all figured out. Now we think we can figure out to how much of a degree we can effect global temps. It's completely laughable.
    If for nothing else we make a cleaner, more responsible planet for the future, I'm all for a curbing or eliminating man made greenhouse gases.
    Sounds like you're not against greenhouse gas limits, but you're not convinced AGW is real.

    Can i just ask, what really would convince you at this point? What would you have to see?

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    Sounds like you're not against greenhouse gas limits, but you're not convinced AGW is real.

    Can i just ask, what really would convince you at this point? What would you have to see?
    The planet has been warming for around the last 130 years. That is real. That has swung back and forth throughout time. Whether or not, or by how much humans impacted that, that debate is far from over.
    For starters would have to see it get as warm as it has in the past. The proven reality is that it has been much warmer, and warmer for longer, before and after people walked the planet. Before this whole agw craze, our current warm and c02 level was easily predicted given the medieval warm period which peaked 800 years ago. Given the widely believed and proven lag in Ocean temps/c02. Or the warm spike before an ice age as proven though ice core data and other means, using the Milankovitch cycle.
    Round and round we go

  54. #54
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    To the folks arguing that the Paris pact is a way to make a lot of money, opposing it is worth a lot of money too. There is always money to be made on anything.

    http://deadstate.org/these-22-gop-se...ed-by-big-oil/

    We must ask, what is the right thing to do, and what will avert the most human suffering?

    We here are in the developed world, we are the first class passengers. When the ship goes down, we will always get life boats. WHO estimates 250k deaths per year from 2030 on, in the poor countries. Add to that mass migration on a scale never seen. If anyone thinks immigration is a problem now just wait. Walls have historically failed on their task. Add to that gobal political conflicts like Syria, expanding throughout areas with energy resources but lacking the resources to successfully feed their citizens. Those will affect every country in some way.

  55. #55
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    To the folks arguing that the Paris pact is a way to make a lot of money, opposing it is worth a lot of money too. There is always money to be made on anything.

    GOP senators who pushed Trump to ditch Paris deal took over $10 million from big oil – DeadState

    We must ask, what is the right thing to do, and what will avert the most human suffering?



    How much do supporters get? I know I'm not getting anything. I know that my taxes keep rising but half the people in this country have no worries about that. That's what I mean about the people that can least afford it wind up footing the bill.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    To the folks arguing that the Paris pact is a way to make a lot of money, opposing it is worth a lot of money too. There is always money to be made on anything.

    GOP senators who pushed Trump to ditch Paris deal took over $10 million from big oil – DeadState

    We must ask, what is the right thing to do, and what will avert the most human suffering?
    Have your cake and eat it too.
    We can't come up with cures and fixes to all that ails us, and strive to provide a world were everyone prospers. Then wonder why there's so many people, and after the fact wonder what we can do to make the globe sustainable. Althou that's what we do with our best intentions
    Round and round we go

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188

    Climate change

    Visualizations are a good way to understand historical temperature data. Here's two good ones.


    https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-..._optimized.gif

    https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_t...imeline_2x.png



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,033
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    We need to have more open minded opinions and outlooks like this to move forward in a productive way.
    Don't you guys get it. It doesn't make any difference.

    Human nature is inherently selfish and short-sighted and it doesn't matter if you double the number of people who care enough about the planet to make deep sacrifices, it still won't be enough. It still won't be close to being nearly remotely enough. Even if you manage to bring about significant change for the better, it's still only a matter of time until we stuff the world up in some way. Or the world has a yawn and a stretch and wipes out half of us in a blink!

  59. #59
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Have your cake and eat it too.
    We can't come up with cures and fixes to all that ails us, and strive to provide a world were everyone prospers. Then wonder why there's so many people, and after the fact wonder what we can do to make the globe sustainable. Althou that's what we do with our best intentions
    But here's the thing, it's on us, the US played a MAJOR role in it. Post WWII, we split the world (focusing on energy resources) with Britain and the Soviets. We got free energy from exploited countries for years, and never paid the true cost. The computer or phone you're on, the Internet, the food you eat, enabled by cheap energy, allowing one person to feed a thousand people, freeing up labor to invest in technology and amenities we take for granted today.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    Visualizations are a good way to understand historical temperature data. Here's two good ones.


    https://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-..._optimized.gif

    https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_t...imeline_2x.png



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You can't look at a snippet of time's climate and come to a conclusion. I could easily point to times, like when dinosaurs roamed the planet, when temps were much warmer, and c02 much higher, way before humans could have possibly made an impact to contradict your data.
    Round and round we go

  61. #61
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    But here's the thing, it's on us, the US played a MAJOR role in it. Post WWII, we split the world (focusing on energy resources) with Britain and the Soviets. We got free energy from exploited countries for years, and never paid the true cost. The computer or phone you're on, the Internet, the food you eat, enabled by cheap energy, allowing one person to feed a thousand people, freeing up labor to invest in technology and amenities we take for granted today.



    I for one am tired of watching the money the U.S. sends to foreign nations enriching a few of the ruling class. Any funding we provide is wasted imo.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pig View Post
    Don't you guys get it. It doesn't make any difference.

    Human nature is inherently selfish and short-sighted and it doesn't matter if you double the number of people who care enough about the planet to make deep sacrifices, it still won't be enough. It still won't be close to being nearly remotely enough. Even if you manage to bring about significant change for the better, it's still only a matter of time until we stuff the world up in some way. Or the world has a yawn and a stretch and wipes out half of us in a blink!
    Agreed. We're not changing any minds up in here. Time will teach us some lessons, again
    Round and round we go

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    I for one am tired of watching the money the U.S. sends to foreign nations enriching a few of the ruling class. Any funding we provide is wasted imo.
    We're all in it together. The sooner you realize that...
    Round and round we go

  64. #64
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    We're all in it together. The sooner you realize that...


    What? Enriching a few? That's all that happens. It's a noble cause but it's only going to make a few wealthier and do zip about the actual issues. As usual.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  65. #65
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    I for one am tired of watching the money the U.S. sends to foreign nations enriching a few of the ruling class. Any funding we provide is wasted imo.
    Agreed, on most if it. Some of it is purely humanitarian.

    Supporting Israel as we do, with hundreds of billions a year, without more pressure for a two state solution, creates terrorists.

  66. #66
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    creates terrorists.


    The U.S. excels at that unfortunately.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  67. #67
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Noise. All fukking noise. There's nothing 'liberal' about not wanting to screw up the planet. That is just another epithet hurled around to justify ignorance. It is basic common sense that we need to do something about climate change, and to those who claim it has nothing or little to do with mankind, get your friggin heads out of the sand. Those who say it ain't worth doing anything as it will not make any difference, you are as bad as those who deny and consume/discard without thought. Of course it is worth trying to do something. HOWEVER SMALL! You who do nothing are the problem.
    As for humanitarian aid, yes some goes to the wealthy and not the people who need it most, but a great deal goes to help those who do need it. I am sure there are hundreds of aid workers with boots on the ground in stricken environments who would love to take you to task on this. We should not stop trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves in this global community, but do everything in our power to stop the corruption, and that does not include stopping the aid.
    The selfish "tough shit" attitudes I see that seem to be on the increase really make me mad!
    It's all Here. Now.

  68. #68
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Noise. All fukking noise. There's nothing 'liberal' about not wanting to screw up the planet. That is just another epithet hurled around to justify ignorance. It is basic common sense that we need to do something about climate change, and to those who claim it has nothing or little to do with mankind, get your friggin heads out of the sand. Those who say it ain't worth doing anything as it will not make any difference, you are as bad as those who deny and consume/discard without thought. Of course it is worth trying to do something. HOWEVER SMALL! You who do nothing are the problem.
    As for humanitarian aid, yes some goes to the wealthy and not the people who need it most, but a great deal goes to help those who do need it. I am sure there are hundreds of aid workers with boots on the ground in stricken environments who would love to take you to task on this. We should not stop trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves in this global community, but do everything in our power to stop the corruption, and that does not include stopping the aid.
    The selfish "tough shit" attitudes I see that seem to be on the increase really make me mad!



    There is nothing at all wrong with wanting, no, demanding accountability and oversight of 100's of millions of dollars. If that's what you consider a "tough shit" attitude, so be it.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  69. #69
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    There is nothing at all wrong with wanting, no, demanding accountability and oversight of 100's of millions of dollars. If that's what you consider a "tough shit" attitude, so be it.
    I don't recall stating anything of the sort. Hmm, let me reread what I wrote...

    Nope, nothing like that... Maybe go check it out again?!?
    It's all Here. Now.

  70. #70
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    The planet has been warming for around the last 130 years. That is real. That has swung back and forth throughout time. Whether or not, or by how much humans impacted that, that debate is far from over.
    For starters would have to see it get as warm as it has in the past. The proven reality is that it has been much warmer, and warmer for longer, before and after people walked the planet. Before this whole agw craze, our current warm and c02 level was easily predicted given the medieval warm period which peaked 800 years ago. Given the widely believed and proven lag in Ocean temps/c02. Or the warm spike before an ice age as proven though ice core data and other means, using the Milankovitch cycle.
    OK, so I presume we agree that both the actual temp is rising, and the atmospheric CO2 is rising. I think you're saying that there's no proof that it's man made, does that fairly summarize your position?

    It's true that atmospheric CO2 has been higher, and global temps have been higher, for example during the Cretaceous. But what if you saw data that CO2 and temps have never risen this fast? Would anything change your mind?

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    . But what if you saw data that CO2 and temps have never risen this fast? Would anything change your mind?
    That's what I think those infographics/comics/gifs are especially good for, it makes it easy to visualize those changes - and it's the rate of change that is so terrifying and in my opinion makes it very obvious that humans are the major cause.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    OK, so I presume we agree that both the actual temp is rising, and the atmospheric CO2 is rising. I think you're saying that there's no proof that it's man made, does that fairly summarize your position?

    It's true that atmospheric CO2 has been higher, and global temps have been higher, for example during the Cretaceous. But what if you saw data that CO2 and temps have never risen this fast? Would anything change your mind?
    There's no data to support that "fast" claim. The further back in time we go, the blurrier the exact percentages and timeline becomes. It would be a guesstimate at best. Regardless of humans or not, c02 should be at a high point now, because of the medieval warm period 800 years ago.
    Fwiw, I have been fascinated and interested in climate and weather since I was a wee one. Was just an impressionable lil kid when the majority of scientists were warning of a cooling climate an the impending ice age upon us. Then the pdo flipped from a cool phase to a warm one and temps started to rebound. Right around the time Roger Revelle stole someone else's idea, and brought to the mainstream, the idea of how increase in c02 will, in a lab, cause temps to rise. Roger was btw, one of al gore's professors. I bought all this hook line and sinker. Until I started to dig deeper to find...temps have never throughout our history gone up because of higher c02, it's the other way round. And how data is tweaked and adjusted to a cause. How ppl who need a cause to feel good about, and take up arms and get all emotional and bent out of shape on a topic they know nothing, or close to nothing about. Now that I'm a dodgy geezer I've come to learn and realize that our media and govs around the world will bend the truth and attempt to bend our will. On agw they have won. If society does survive they willlookback at this time and laugh, and hopefully learn. Althou they will likely be in an ice age.
    Round and round we go

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Noise. All fukking noise. There's nothing 'liberal' about not wanting to screw up the planet. That is just another epithet hurled around to justify ignorance. It is basic common sense that we need to do something about climate change, and to those who claim it has nothing or little to do with mankind, get your friggin heads out of the sand. Those who say it ain't worth doing anything as it will not make any difference, you are as bad as those who deny and consume/discard without thought. Of course it is worth trying to do something. HOWEVER SMALL! You who do nothing are the problem.
    As for humanitarian aid, yes some goes to the wealthy and not the people who need it most, but a great deal goes to help those who do need it. I am sure there are hundreds of aid workers with boots on the ground in stricken environments who would love to take you to task on this. We should not stop trying to help those less fortunate than ourselves in this global community, but do everything in our power to stop the corruption, and that does not include stopping the aid.
    The selfish "tough shit" attitudes I see that seem to be on the increase really make me mad!
    You come in here and comment/congratulate members for being civil and encourage it. Then you follow it up with this post.
    Lol, see through. #highhorse, #soapbox
    Round and round we go

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    You can't look at a snippet of time's climate and come to a conclusion. I could easily point to times, like when dinosaurs roamed the planet, when temps were much warmer, and c02 much higher, way before humans could have possibly made an impact to contradict your data.
    You realize that humans were not alive at that time either, right? Took a huge asteroid to block the sun our for a long time and cool it down. We don't want it to get that much hotter.
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  75. #75
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    You come in here and comment/congratulate members for being civil and encourage it. Then you follow it up with this post.
    Lol, see through. #highhorse, #soapbox
    Just telling it like I see it Meat...!
    It's all Here. Now.

  76. #76
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,844
    Come to Arizona. It's 107* today.

  77. #77
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillbo View Post
    Come to Arizona. It's 107* today.
    Yup, and it was getting tough up the steep part of Upper Javelina this morning!
    It's all Here. Now.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Guys, this thread is about the climate, not the weather. Get with the program

    Making energy more expensive and limited goes against what liberals claim to be and stand for. You want to see a hockey stick, look at what energy has done for the poorest among us in the last 50-100 years.
    Name:  image.gif
Views: 1093
Size:  16.6 KB
    Add to that the amount effort and energy, and the billions of dollars spent on proving agw. If we spent a portion of that time and money on the needy...So rockerc, get your head out of your ... and follow along.

    Look at this chart, and see where we are today. This is the omg cO2 is now driving the climate for the first time ever.
    Climate change-image.jpg

    Then look at what our best models predicted, and where we actually ended up
    Name:  image.png
Views: 1098
Size:  59.4 KB

    Moving along. Now check out how much warmer, and warmer for longer we as humans have been through. I might add that when the planet was warmer, is when we advanced and prospered the most
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 1117
Size:  18.1 KB

    Now for the global warming cheerleaders, who love to look at the warming of the last 130 years, let's look back just a lil further.
    Climate change-image.png

    And finally, and this is the kicker, this is controlled by our orbit around the sun (Milankovitch), so unless this relatively minuscule up tick in c02 is going to change that, look at what we're heading toward. While in our infinite wisdom we prepare for the opposite.
    Name:  image.gif
Views: 1099
Size:  11.2 KB

    I know I can't be the only former agw cheerleader to figure this out. And if I am, I'm way smarter than I ever thought I was
    Round and round we go

  79. #79
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Meat, you're a dweeb, round and round we go again indeed! These graphs prove jack shit because none have ever taken into account the fact that mankind is now part of the equation. I suggest you try and extrapolate into the future cos none of these are any good at it.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Meat, you're a dweeb, round and round we go again indeed! These graphs prove jack shit because none have ever taken into account the fact that mankind is now part of the equation. I suggest you try and extrapolate into the future cos none of these are any good at it.
    You should really educate yourself before you start judging and preaching to others about a given subject. Pretty obvious and understandable why you would resort to name calling.
    Round and round we go

  81. #81
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    You should really educate yourself before you start judging and preaching to others about a given subject. Pretty obvious and understandable why you would resort to name calling.
    Meat, I respect your efforts to educate yourself and others, but this statistical hubbub you continue to expound is simply irrelevant for the reasons I stated. All it is is a record of the past, and it takes no account of what is currently happening. And maybe we need to know where that red line goes in the penultimate graph before jumping to too many conclusions.
    And by the way, a dweeb to me is a nerd, and there are many who assume that mantle gladly.
    It's all Here. Now.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,033

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Meat, I respect your efforts to educate yourself and others, but this statistical hubbub you continue to expound is simply irrelevant for the reasons I stated. All it is is a record of the past, and it takes no account of what is currently happening. And maybe we need to know where that red line goes in the penultimate graph before jumping to too many conclusions.
    And by the way, a dweeb to me is a nerd, and there are many who assume that mantle gladly.
    Interesting...
    Didn't consider man while debating man made agw.
    People have never, and probably never will know where the red line is headed.
    If you want to have a conversation and have people follow along, when using key words that are designed to impres or make an impact, you should probably consider their actual meaning

    pe·nul·ti·mate
    pəˈnəltəmət/
    adjective
    last but one in a series of things; second to the last.
    Round and round we go

  84. #84
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Thanks for the informative post meat, but I'm afraid I absolutely do know what penultimate means, and I use it in daily conversation. I do not happen to find this impressive, it merely shows I am lucky enough to have had a good education.
    It's all Here. Now.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Thanks for the informative post meat, but I'm afraid I absolutely do know what penultimate means, and I use it in daily conversation. I do not happen to find this impressive, it merely shows I am lucky enough to have had a good education.
    No need to get defensive and post up resume
    You clearly mis used the word, as well as others, and clearly contradict yourself on things you pretend to feel so strongly about.
    Like "those who don't believe in man made blah blah blah should get their head out of...", then, "we should probably know where the red line is going before we jump to too many conclusions". We don't know where the red line is headed. That's the point of this whole thread. So enough about you, the thread already has a topic
    Round and round we go

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Round and round we go

  87. #87
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    The issue is not whether the climate is changing or not. It clearly is.
    The points in dispute are the cause (mostly, but not entirely, humans) and what is the best way to deal with the change.

    With the first, completely eliminating all anthropogenic causes would slow, but still not halt warming. The natural rate of change would still occur. Complete elimination of all human effects is politically impossible.

    The best way to deal with it is adaptation. The original IPCC charter states the goals are to determine methods to both mitigate AND ADAPT. Even back in 1988 the world recognized stopping warming was impossible.

    Paris accords do nothing. It is a deeply flawed agreement, more a warm and fuzzy feel-good story than concrete action plan. John Kerry admitted as such when he returned from the negotiations, stating "It is the best we are going to get."
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  88. #88
    nvphatty
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckha62 View Post
    Here's my thing... Whether or not you believe that climate change is, at least in part, man-made (and I do), why not do what's right regardless? Minimize your footprint, think and act in an ecologically ethical manner, recycle, reuse, reduce waste, use energy saving techniques and products wherever possible. I mean, holy crap, we're treating our planet like an f-ing pig sty!
    yup, yup and fuvkin yup.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    If you want to ignore that, which should be clear, obvious, and make sense to someone with a "brain", and instead turn it into whatever you did up there....have fun in your empty nest, while waiting for the end of the world.
    As you think I don't have a brain, and I don't have children, the only logical conclusion is that my actions in life have resulted in hapiness for you, I generally like to make people happy, that also results in me being happy, so we have a win win situation here!

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by jackbombay View Post
    As you think I don't have a brain, and I don't have children, the only logical conclusion is that my actions in life have resulted in hapiness for you, I generally like to make people happy, that also results in me being happy, so we have a win win situation here!
    Didn't think you don't have a brain. Nor did I take your comments to mean you didn't have or want children. Thought you just meant that as an in general comment, as I did mine. Because some people imo shouldn't have children, just that some are smart and unselfish enough to realize that.
    Round and round we go

  91. #91
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Buggers indeed meat!
    "Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests. "

    And who is it that fells the forests?

    Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest! Then fart out whatever you like The termites have you covered!
    It's all Here. Now.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Buggers indeed meat!
    "Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests. "

    And who is it that fells the forests?

    Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest! Then fart out whatever you like The termites have you covered!
    Talk about farting out whatever. I posted the link. I knew what it said. Glad you read the link, sad you read it to try and prove me wrong, rather than learn something.
    My point was just that with this debate is over bs, we think we have our finger on it. Meanwhile there's so many aspects that we couldn't possibly. Not to mention all the effort and reasons that went untold and undiscovered, that now make the post because it's another omg we have to do something now way to sell bs

    Don't know who remembers
    Couple of years ago when solar activity slowed dramatically. Smart meteorologists and climatologists knew that meant a slowing of the jet stream. Which causes a less straight, more north south swing. As well when the pdo is in a switching from cool to warm phase, or warm to cool phase, the same result occurs. We had both things happening. The first year we had it the term polar vortex became a catch phrase. Which causes Arctic air to plunge way down south. Then the next year we had even more polar vortex events, because a blocking up near Alaska/being sea, known as an Alaskan gate just exaggerated it. By the end of the second year all these articles started to come out with these cockamamie reasons that made no sense, but of course it was agw fault. We can't have it getting colder. It must be agw that's causing the cold, right? Guess as long as it agw fault, it makes the post. Funny how unbiased knowledgeable people predicted this would happen years before it did and could tell you why, and after it happened people trying to taint the whole subject had to figure out a way to get an angle on why it's agw. Have seen so many things like this occur, it makes it pretty obvious what's going on
    Last edited by theMeat; 06-09-2017 at 05:17 AM.
    Round and round we go

  93. #93
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Talk about farting out whatever. I posted the link. I knew what it said. Glad you read the link, sad you read it to try and prove me wrong, rather than learn something.
    My point was just that with this debate is over bs, we think we have our finger on it. Meanwhile there's so many aspects that we couldn't possibly. Not to mention all the effort and reasons that went untold and undiscovered, that now make the post because it's another omg we have to do something now way to sell bs
    You've lost me now.
    It's all Here. Now.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    You've lost me now.
    Sorry, it doesn't take much, lol. I posted it, knew what it said. Instead of you seeing me trying not to be a close minded biased jerk, you try to find info to shoot me down.
    We can read about, and now you know about, termites and their effect on greenhouse gases. Yet a much bigger story is about how low solar activity has been. Its pretty monumental, and the exact opposite of what was "predicted". Yet most people, even most agw cheerleaders who supposedly care so deeply, haven't a clue
    Round and round we go

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jackbombay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    You've lost me now.
    I couldn't follow along either.

  96. #96
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,844
    Actually it's climate cooling. Today was 107*. Last year on this date was 112*.

    I'm curios if the cooling is man caused?

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillbo View Post
    Actually it's climate cooling. Today was 107*. Last year on this date was 112*.

    I'm curios if the cooling is man caused?
    My kids can't seem to keep the damn door closed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    LOL I started reading the first comments and they were all respectful and generally thoughtful, then scrolled down to the last ones ... they've somehow changed tone.

    BTW global warming is real and it is caused by humans, theMeat. So there.
    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    Is climate change real? Depends if you asked someone in northern Texas or southern Texas on that day.

    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The issue is not whether the climate is changing or not. It clearly is.
    The points in dispute are the cause (mostly, but not entirely, humans) and what is the best way to deal with the change.

    With the first, completely eliminating all anthropogenic causes would slow, but still not halt warming. The natural rate of change would still occur. Complete elimination of all human effects is politically impossible.

    The best way to deal with it is adaptation. The original IPCC charter states the goals are to determine methods to both mitigate AND ADAPT. Even back in 1988 the world recognized stopping warming was impossible.

    Paris accords do nothing. It is a deeply flawed agreement, more a warm and fuzzy feel-good story than concrete action plan. John Kerry admitted as such when he returned from the negotiations, stating "It is the best we are going to get."
    While I agree that the Paris accords are mostly a big circle jerk, it does get the planet on the same page somewhat, and does get the planet headed in the right direction, wether for misguided goals or not. The reason it's for the most part it's a circle jerk is because any country can make any commitments they want, and there's basically no means for them to be held to the terms. Can promise anything you want, then do whatever you want. For that same reason it's pretty silly not to be a part of what the rest of the world is apart of. When n Korea is there, and we are not, it's just bad for brand America
    Round and round we go

  101. #101
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    While I agree that the Paris accords are mostly a big circle jerk, it does get the planet on the same page somewhat, and does get the planet headed in the right direction, wether for misguided goals or not. The reason it's for the most part it's a circle jerk is because any country can make any commitments they want, and there's basically no means for them to be held to the terms. Can promise anything you want, then do whatever you want. For that same reason it's pretty silly not to be a part of what the rest of the world is apart of. When n Korea is there, and we are not, it's just bad for brand America
    Encouraging. Paris is a step in the right direction as you say, and people who say it is not worth being in it because of the reasons you cite are short sighted. Some of the biggest member countries have already actually exceeded their targets, China and India specifically.
    It's all Here. Now.

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Encouraging. Paris is a step in the right direction as you say, and people who say it is not worth being in it because of the reasons you cite are short sighted. Some of the biggest member countries have already actually exceeded their targets, China and India specifically.
    Yep, and their monetary commitment has grow bigly, just over the last few days since we pulled out. They see the opportunity to be at the forefront of a new market. Pulling out isn't the best strategy, on more than one topic
    Round and round we go

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Wow - USA Today read my mind.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/102489538/

    "Third, we need to ban private jet travel. At first I thought about just taxing it heavily, but with the planet at stake, that might not be enough. It’s nice that John Travolta can have his own Boeing 707, or that Leonardo DiCaprio can jet around the world speaking against climate change, but the carbon emissions involved set a bad example that outweighs anything he might say. So no more private jets. Bigshots will just have to fly commercial like everyone else, the way they did in the 1950s. (And sorry, Leo, but massive yachts have to go, too). Politicians, too, should have to fly commercial. No more government-funded “executive jets” for them."

  104. #104
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Wow - USA Today read my mind.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/102489538/

    "Third, we need to ban private jet travel. At first I thought about just taxing it heavily, but with the planet at stake, that might not be enough. It’s nice that John Travolta can have his own Boeing 707, or that Leonardo DiCaprio can jet around the world speaking against climate change, but the carbon emissions involved set a bad example that outweighs anything he might say. So no more private jets. Bigshots will just have to fly commercial like everyone else, the way they did in the 1950s. (And sorry, Leo, but massive yachts have to go, too). Politicians, too, should have to fly commercial. No more government-funded “executive jets” for them."
    Kim Kardashian will not go for this, so millions will be against any such measures...

    Nice sound bite, but private jet travel is only a small part of the whole. The entire transportation sector accounts for only 14% of greenhouse gas emissions here.
    Higher taxes on beachfront properties liable to flooding to discourage their development is an interesting proposition! Why not just increase insurance premiums hugely? Then of course only extremely wealthy people will live by the sea, and create even more divisions of us & them... round and round we go indeed! A huge shift into renewable energies and mass changes in lifestyle practices are the only ways to really make a discernible difference.
    It's all Here. Now.

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Stopping people from buying and flying in their own aircraft sounds communistic. yeah, let's tax more to fix a made up problem. OH wait, let's make up a problem so we can tax it
    Last edited by theMeat; 06-05-2017 at 03:43 PM.
    Round and round we go

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Nice sound bite, but private jet travel is only a small part of the whole. The entire transportation sector accounts for only 14% of greenhouse gas emissions here.
    It around 13% globally. Closer to 35% in the usa. As far as c02.

    The oceans can absorb or release, depending on their temps, 50 times more c02 than everything above them
    Round and round we go

  107. #107
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Encouraging. Paris is a step in the right direction as you say, and people who say it is not worth being in it because of the reasons you cite are short sighted...
    Symbolism over substance?
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  108. #108
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,844
    During the Ice Age temps would fall and rise, ice would form and thaw. I doubt man had anything to do with that. It's a cyclical thang.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    We're technically in an ice age. Within an ice age, like clockwork (Milankovitch), there are glacial periods that last around 100,000 years, and interglacial periods which last around 11,500 years. We are currently enjoying an interglacial period which started around 11,500 years ago.

    So yes, you're right Phillbo
    Round and round we go

  110. #110
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,361
    Yesterday's local newsprint was quite favoring of The President's stance toward the Climate Agreement and not only their own view I copied below, but all the write-in OP-Ed's too.
    I'm getting used to seeing The Gazette playing fairly objective but the public forum OP ED's usually tear him (Pres. Trump) up , although more so with personal blows than substance. I cluded it below -


    THE GAZETTE’S VIEWPOINT

    Green religion is based on faith alone

    Listen closely to the cant and jargon of modern environmentalism, and in the empty invocations of “science,” you are witnessing the rites of a religious faith.

    If the screams after President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement seemed overwrought, it s because Trump hadn’t merely adopted a policy the other side disagreed with; he’d committed a secular, liberal, sacrilege. Take CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who said, “This will be the day that the United States resigned as the leader of the free world.” He then listed what he regarded as the benefits of Paris, without addressing why it had anything to do with American leadership.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Trump supports a “dirty-energy agenda” that is a “grave threat to our planet.”

    Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tried to outdo all potential 2020 rivals by saying that Trump’s decision to bid Paris adieu was “catastrophic for our planet, for ourselves, and for our kids.”

    These overheated CO2 emissions reflect sincere emotion but have nothing to do with facts and science. They’re entirely about faith in global, intergovernmental rhetoric.

    None of them acknowledged that American emissions are falling fast and will continue to do so through 2030.

    In 2007, America emitted 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. In the decade since, emissions have fallen 13 percent, to 5.2 billion metric tons.

    This occurred without Paris, without capand-trade, without a carbon tax and without former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

    From 2003 to 2013 (the latest World Bank data), America’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita fell by 16 percent, mainly because of innovative technology such as fracking and horizontal drilling — cleaner, cheaper ways to get energy.

    Natural gas is displacing coal. America is achieving what environmentalists say they want, but it’s not doing it in the way today’s green faith demands, which is through regulation, restriction, central command and economic insipidity.

    To liberal environmentalists here and in European corridors of power, this makes America a villain, while Brazil and India are saints even though their per capita emissions rose by 39 percent and 60 percent respectively during the same decade.

    The difference is that Brazil and India pay lip service to Paris.

    What about relatively more developed South Korea, where emissions rose by 22 percent? Even in Germany, where nuclear energy was cast recklessly aside, per capita emissions declined by only 6 percent in that period. America is leading, yet it’s evil because it won’t grovel to the new world order.

    The Paris Agreement is not about reducing emissions, which it will fail to do, but about professing the faith. No good works, no actual emissions reduction, make up for the way the United States under Trump has turned away from Obama-style obeisance. The United States is the heretic while Brazil is in the state of grace.

    And heretics will be burned.

    No sober-minded person thought Paris, a nonbinding agreement, was going to save the planet.

    But the faithful were always seeking a deeper sense of salvation.

    American emissions are falling fast and will continue to do so through 2030.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  111. #111
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by bachman1961 View Post
    Yesterday's local newsprint was quite favoring of The President's stance toward the Climate Agreement and not only their own view I copied below, but all the write-in OP-Ed's too.
    I'm getting used to seeing The Gazette playing fairly objective but the public forum OP ED's usually tear him (Pres. Trump) up , although more so with personal blows than substance. I cluded it below -


    THE GAZETTE’S VIEWPOINT

    Green religion is based on faith alone

    Listen closely to the cant and jargon of modern environmentalism, and in the empty invocations of “science,” you are witnessing the rites of a religious faith.

    If the screams after President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement seemed overwrought, it s because Trump hadn’t merely adopted a policy the other side disagreed with; he’d committed a secular, liberal, sacrilege. Take CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, who said, “This will be the day that the United States resigned as the leader of the free world.” He then listed what he regarded as the benefits of Paris, without addressing why it had anything to do with American leadership.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Trump supports a “dirty-energy agenda” that is a “grave threat to our planet.”

    Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., tried to outdo all potential 2020 rivals by saying that Trump’s decision to bid Paris adieu was “catastrophic for our planet, for ourselves, and for our kids.”

    These overheated CO2 emissions reflect sincere emotion but have nothing to do with facts and science. They’re entirely about faith in global, intergovernmental rhetoric.

    None of them acknowledged that American emissions are falling fast and will continue to do so through 2030.

    In 2007, America emitted 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. In the decade since, emissions have fallen 13 percent, to 5.2 billion metric tons.

    This occurred without Paris, without capand-trade, without a carbon tax and without former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

    From 2003 to 2013 (the latest World Bank data), America’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita fell by 16 percent, mainly because of innovative technology such as fracking and horizontal drilling — cleaner, cheaper ways to get energy.

    Natural gas is displacing coal. America is achieving what environmentalists say they want, but it’s not doing it in the way today’s green faith demands, which is through regulation, restriction, central command and economic insipidity.

    To liberal environmentalists here and in European corridors of power, this makes America a villain, while Brazil and India are saints even though their per capita emissions rose by 39 percent and 60 percent respectively during the same decade.

    The difference is that Brazil and India pay lip service to Paris.

    What about relatively more developed South Korea, where emissions rose by 22 percent? Even in Germany, where nuclear energy was cast recklessly aside, per capita emissions declined by only 6 percent in that period. America is leading, yet it’s evil because it won’t grovel to the new world order.

    The Paris Agreement is not about reducing emissions, which it will fail to do, but about professing the faith. No good works, no actual emissions reduction, make up for the way the United States under Trump has turned away from Obama-style obeisance. The United States is the heretic while Brazil is in the state of grace.

    And heretics will be burned.

    No sober-minded person thought Paris, a nonbinding agreement, was going to save the planet.

    But the faithful were always seeking a deeper sense of salvation.

    American emissions are falling fast and will continue to do so through 2030.
    And you believe/agree with all you read in the press?

    Personally I look at what trump is doing outside of the Paris Agreement decision, which was purely politically driven in my mind, and see his appointments to positions around himself, his defunding of environmentally-related programs, and I despair. I believe that all of us who love the outside as MTBers should also despair, because this administration is going to cause a large amount of damage to the countryside I in particular love.

    Yes emissions have been falling, because we are becoming more aware of environmental issues and have been reacting accordingly. This is not the time to stop those practices.
    It's all Here. Now.

  112. #112
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    Symbolism over substance?
    It may well be, but it is the first step toward general acceptance and implementation, and seems to actually be helping overall. Just because something may not give us the immediate results necessary, it does not make it worthless. This is a longer game of education, and if it takes awhile for people to see, it is better than them never seeing. There is substance in that.
    It's all Here. Now.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Personally I look at what trump is doing outside of the Paris Agreement decision, which was purely politically driven in my mind, and see his appointments to positions around himself, his defunding of environmentally-related programs, and I despair. I believe that all of us who love the outside as MTBers should also despair, because this administration is going to cause a large amount of damage to the countryside I in particular love.
    .
    But, Rex Tillerson said that the President still believes in reducing carbon emissions. It doesn't sound like the President is just blowing off environmentalism - but rather, he thought that Paris agreement was a bad deal for the United States. So, I don't think there's need to despair.

    Also, the other thing I wonder is that, even without international agreements, won't renewable energy eventually ease out fossil fuels over time? I suspect that 50 years from now, most cars will be electric and that most homes will have solar panels.

  114. #114
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    But, Rex Tillerson said that the President still believes in reducing carbon emissions. It doesn't sound like the President is just blowing off environmentalism - but rather, he thought that Paris agreement was a bad deal for the United States. So, I don't think there's need to despair.

    Also, the other thing I wonder is that, even without international agreements, won't renewable energy eventually ease out fossil fuels over time? I suspect that 50 years from now, most cars will be electric and that most homes will have solar panels.
    Ok. Let's see him take the money we would have spent on the Paris agreement and spend it on developing renewable energy. Tidal, solar, wind.

    I'm guessing that won't happen.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  115. #115
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Ok. Let's see him take the money we would have spent on the Paris agreement and spend it on developing renewable energy. Tidal, solar, wind.

    I'm guessing that won't happen.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk



    Tidal, wind and solar are all pretty heavily subsidized as it is.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  116. #116
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,361
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    And you believe/agree with all you read in the press?
    What I believe is much of media can stop with the Nonsense. Media and journalism have turned quite a while ago. It's sensationalism, hysteria and news alerts.
    Now I understand the question you ask but my paragraph stands on it's own.

    I DO see a newspaper that calls things straight and aims to point out the silly things Trump has said and done but also illustrates support for ideas that work and things gone correct to plan no matter the party. I've followed the news here in CO for about 25 years now so I've tested the waters of "news" within the context of party politics to know where to look if I'm in the mood to tickle my ears. The local paper speaking for itself doesn't fall in line with the recent examples of hysterical headlines like; "Trump turns his back on the world" or "Donald Trump Poisons the world" or a recent mass media news channel quote; "Trump has committed one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history".
    Politics overshadowing truth or science isn't helping anyone either.

    To answer your question, NO I do not believe or agree with all I read in the press nor everything I see on tv or hear on the radio.
    You've been a good student of the media you attend and you probably expected that answer above but your just asking it could insinuate that I do believe and agree with everything I read and see and there's just no way I'm going to let you slip that in.
    This is really why you're getting my time.

    I'm certain or at least hopeful you don't fall for every Scientific study unless it has been perused through scientific journals and peer reviewed, ideally concluding; "... further study or research is advised" or "identifying conclusion as areas for further investigation".

    ** You know this-
    We've had saccharin cause cancer for 30 years until it did not (further research) . Fiber reduced cancer risk for 20 years until it did not. Red wine is good for you, Red wine is bad for you .....
    You get the idea, Scientific Consensus and such.


    ~ bach
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  117. #117
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The world is overpopulated by half. No one want's to talk about that though.
    We are way overdue for a large meteorite strike. That would take care of half, if not all PDQ.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  118. #118
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Tidal, wind and solar are all pretty heavily subsidized as it is.
    I thought the wind farms were killing birds and interrupting their flight paths and the solar fields were incinerating birds and bees. Did they fix all that,Lol.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  119. #119
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    I thought the wind farms were killing birds and interrupting their flight paths and the solar fields were incinerating birds and bees. Did they fix all that,Lol.
    I think we should worry about not killing off all the bees with pesticides before worrying about a few bees in relative bee-sparse areas.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  120. #120
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I think we should worry about not killing off all the bees with pesticides before worrying about a few bees in relative bee-sparse areas.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    I would have to agree with that 100%.
    I was just pointing out- It appears that no energy solution is without consequence.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  121. #121
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by CUP-TON View Post
    We are way overdue for a large meteorite strike. That would take care of half, if not all PDQ.
    The thawing permafrost is releasing millenia old bacteria and viruses for which humans have no immunity. A global pandemic will thin the herd first.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  122. #122
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The thawing permafrost is releasing millenia old bacteria and viruses for which humans have no immunity. A global pandemic will thin the herd first.
    That's what I'm talking about. Let's get this party started.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  123. #123
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The thawing permafrost is releasing millenia old bacteria and viruses for which humans have no immunity. A global pandemic will thin the herd first.
    Perhaps these will be the zombie-causing bacteria which we seem to be overly welcoming to... Some are more prepared than others to survive in such a world, but I wonder what skills would be most suited to this survival?!?
    It's all Here. Now.

  124. #124
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by bachman1961 View Post
    To answer your question, NO I do not believe or agree with all I read in the press nor everything I see on tv or hear on the radio.

    ~ bach
    Heheh... if you have seen some of my posts you may know that my tongue is often lodged in my cheek. Not always, but sometimes... The media is guilty of much, but entirely necessary. I object to editorial control by owners of vast media empires, who have a distinctly unfavorable agenda, at least to many of us.
    I often despair at how the media sensationalizes so much of what happens, and the rolling news scenario is simply abhorrent to me. I remember being stuck for a week at O'Hare after 9/11 and watching planes crash into buildings repeatedly for hours on end, until I emailed CNN to tell them to please stop. They have since got worse, along with all those other channels that do the same thing. This does not lead to anything being 'right sized' any more, and reporting on climate change is similar on both sides of the coin.
    Having said that, responsible journalism is essential for a healthy society, especially a civilized society built on suitable checks and balances...
    Having lived through the worst of the IRA terrorism activities in London in the 70s, being in close proximity to exploding bombs, and having people close to me maimed and killed by this, I wonder how we would have felt back then if we had had the social media and rolling news of today. I do remember being more vigilant, but not really terrified or even very scared. We got on with life.
    It's all Here. Now.

  125. #125
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Perhaps these will be the zombie-causing bacteria which we seem to be overly welcoming to... Some are more prepared than others to survive in such a world, but I wonder what skills would be most suited to this survival?!?
    Wash your hands often and stop touching your face and mouth so much.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  126. #126
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Heheh... if you have seen some of my posts you may know that my tongue is often lodged in my cheek. Not always, but sometimes... The media is guilty of much, but entirely necessary. I object to editorial control by owners of vast media empires, who have a distinctly unfavorable agenda, at least to many of us.
    I often despair at how the media sensationalizes so much of what happens, and the rolling news scenario is simply abhorrent to me. I remember being stuck for a week at O'Hare after 9/11 and watching planes crash into buildings repeatedly for hours on end, until I emailed CNN to tell them to please stop. They have since got worse, along with all those other channels that do the same thing. This does not lead to anything being 'right sized' any more, and reporting on climate change is similar on both sides of the coin.
    Having said that, responsible journalism is essential for a healthy society, especially a civilized society built on suitable checks and balances...
    Having lived through the worst of the IRA terrorism activities in London in the 70s, being in close proximity to exploding bombs, and having people close to me maimed and killed by this, I wonder how we would have felt back then if we had had the social media and rolling news of today. I do remember being more vigilant, but not really terrified or even very scared. We got on with life.
    I just saw this article which speaks of the things I was talking about on the subject of the media. I know it is not climate-change related, but it is relevant to sensationalism in the media, and how it often colors stories:

    Trump can't stop distorting what London's mayor says about terrorism. There's a reason.
    It's all Here. Now.

  127. #127
    Nothing seems to kill me
    Reputation: CUP-TON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Perhaps these will be the zombie-causing bacteria which we seem to be overly welcoming to... Some are more prepared than others to survive in such a world, but I wonder what skills would be most suited to this survival?!?
    Frankenvirus.

    My new favorite word.
    Sweet Jesus don't let the judge release me, what if she's a Zombie or a Dracula and tries to f&*king eat me.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    The thawing permafrost is releasing millenia old bacteria and viruses for which humans have no immunity. A global pandemic will thin the herd first.
    We are so ill prepared for a pandemic of any kind. Especially after Zika went away quietly, people would be so blasé that by the time they realize that it is serious, millions would be dead.

  129. #129
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Perhaps these will be the zombie-causing bacteria which we seem to be overly welcoming to... Some are more prepared than others to survive in such a world, but I wonder what skills would be most suited to this survival?!?

    A very long bikepacking trip. Solo. In a remote area with no other people around.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  130. #130
    NDD
    NDD is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,577
    Someone please enlighten me on this argument that keeps coming up in this thread. It seems to me that some are arguing that people who believe in AGW somehow believe that the current climate has always been this way (which is a straw man). To back that up they say "climate changed before people existed, so we shouldn't think that we're causing it now".

    So who really is stuck being in a way? The reasons that the climate is changing can't be different at different points in history? Why not? In fact, that doesn't give us any enlightening material with which to counter the actual mechanism proposed to cause AGW.

    To me that argument is absurd. That's like saying "well rivers have changed their courses before. That's right so building a dam can't change the course of a river". The conclusion does not necessarily follow.

    At what other point in history have primates dug up carbon stores out of the ground and burned them up, releasing gases that trap in heat?
    dang

  131. #131
    Co Springs
    Reputation: bachman1961's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,361
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    Heheh... if you have seen some of my posts you may know that my tongue is often lodged in my cheek. Not always, but sometimes... The media is guilty of much, but entirely necessary. I object to editorial control by owners of vast media empires, who have a distinctly unfavorable agenda, at least to many of us.
    I often despair at how the media sensationalizes so much of what happens, and the rolling news scenario is simply abhorrent to me. I remember being stuck for a week at O'Hare after 9/11 and watching planes crash into buildings repeatedly for hours on end, until I emailed CNN to tell them to please stop. They have since got worse, along with all those other channels that do the same thing. This does not lead to anything being 'right sized' any more, and reporting on climate change is similar on both sides of the coin.
    Having said that, responsible journalism is essential for a healthy society, especially a civilized society built on suitable checks and balances...
    Having lived through the worst of the IRA terrorism activities in London in the 70s, being in close proximity to exploding bombs, and having people close to me maimed and killed by this, I wonder how we would have felt back then if we had had the social media and rolling news of today. I do remember being more vigilant, but not really terrified or even very scared. We got on with life.
    "Before you criticize, you should walk a mile in their shoes. You'll be a mile away from them and you have their shoes"

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by NDD View Post
    Someone please enlighten me on this argument that keeps coming up in this thread. It seems to me that some are arguing that people who believe in AGW somehow believe that the current climate has always been this way (which is a straw man). To back that up they say "climate changed before people existed, so we shouldn't think that we're causing it now".

    So who really is stuck being in a way? The reasons that the climate is changing can't be different at different points in history? Why not? In fact, that doesn't give us any enlightening material with which to counter the actual mechanism proposed to cause AGW.

    To me that argument is absurd. That's like saying "well rivers have changed their courses before. That's right so building a dam can't change the course of a river". The conclusion does not necessarily follow.

    At what other point in history have primates dug up carbon stores out of the ground and burned them up, releasing gases that trap in heat?
    Will give it a try
    Let's say in your river analogy we were building the dam to overt a coming flood. While everyone is focused on the doom and gloom the flood will cause. Pointing to the cloud cover upstream. Even thou there is evidence that the river has gotten 10 times higher in the past and everything was fine. And evidence of a clear pattern of a drought timeline that shows we are nearing another drought. If building the dam will make it certain that the floods would not come, and put people to work and in other ways make the world a better and cleaner place, sure, we should build the dam. But let's recognize the reality and evidence that it's not this omg we have to build the dam now.
    We have already seen most, if not all of the agw doom and gloom predictions not come to fruition.
    Climate models have not just been wrong, but way wrong.
    The poles were supposed to be gone by now.
    Snow was supposed to be a thing our children wouldn't see.
    And so many thresholds that if we didn't act before them would be the point of no return, which have since been passed.
    Hurricanes and tornadoes are supposed to escalate, yet they have both declined for decades now.
    And the list goes on...
    We as people mostly want to, or at least appear to work together for a cause. Our last generation had human rights, among other things. This generation wants to up it and save the whole planet. A worthy cause and Wow are there so many ways we can and should do that. But c02 taking over the climate to our demise, let alone driving it shouldn't be one of them
    You don't have to look any further than this thread to see how flawed, tainted, and politically biased this topic has become. So I wish people would at least look at all the science and evidence, instead of just pointing to what supports their side.
    The pdo flipped to a cool phase, right on schedule. just as it should and has done throughout this interglacial. Solar activity is unpredictability way low, and our planet's orbit around the sun is staying it's coarse. All these things point to a climate that will cool. So while we run around thinking and feeling and trying to convince what drives the climate, One side or the other will be enlightened
    Round and round we go

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ancient rascal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,345

    Play nice kids!

    Will Warming Surge as Arctic Microbes Feast on Defrosting Carbon? Follow the money as usual. Huge money spent to dispel climate change. I'm no expert on this but I think our goose may already be cooked. Look at the methane satellite specs? It's gonna be a bumpy ride me thinks! Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USA Follow ..... I think the bucket has now been stirred?
    Suicide by single speed. Work in progress.

  134. #134
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,442
    The Climate Change issue may have hurt environmental efforts.

    Environmental damage, pollution, and the other ills caused by our toxic, decadent lifestyle at one time were well recognized. There was a healthy movement in the 1970s emerging that looked toward saving and conserving rather than consuming and spending. Jimmy Carter looked the American public directly in the eye and told us so. During the following decade that movement withered, or was intentionally killed off.

    Now it seems that the "only" reason to address our toxic, decadent lifestyle, and overconsumption, is to stop global warming.


    There might be better reasons to clean up our act.

  135. #135
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,574
    Absolutely, I agree with that Miker J. I also agree with Meat, that the debate is far from over, but I also don't take that as "proof" that humans aren't affecting the climate. To me, the religious fervor with which climate change enthusiasts preach (don't start me on the "climate denier" label) is detrimental to 'the cause'. IMO, it can be boiled down to a pretty simple little punnet-square type equation.
    Name:  PfyLjCI.png
Views: 374
Size:  27.1 KB

    I don't believe that focusing on making our economy (and lifestyle) more sustainable and less damaging to the environment will result in an "economic catastrophe", end even if it did it would certainly be less catastrophic than the environmental catastrophe of continuing to pollute and degrade the natural resources we're so heavily dependent on. Regardless of whether man-made climate change is "real" and avoidable, cleaning up our act is absolutely the right thing to do for a whole host of other reasons, and I would like to think/hope that they would be fairly obvious to anyone who enjoys getting out into the wilderness on a bike.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Wow Wee

    Two common sense posts in a row!
    Round and round we go

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    24
    No amount of legislation is going to effect the climate, because the climate is directly fed by the sun, not cow farts.

  138. #138
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    ...
    Now it seems that the "only" reason to address our toxic, decadent lifestyle, and overconsumption, is to stop global warming.,.
    That is the crux of this thread. The scientific consensus is GW cannot be stopped, only slowed. We will be forced to adapt anyway at some point in the future regardless of whether the US stays in the Accords.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  139. #139
    NDD
    NDD is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Now it seems that the "only" reason to address our toxic, decadent lifestyle, and overconsumption, is to stop global warming.


    There might be better reasons to clean up our act.
    That's only because people are shortsighted by nature. Whether you believe AGW or not, there are plenty of reasons to protect the environment. Most people would agree, I think, that pollution of water, land, and air is an infringement on everybody's right to live a healthy life, except by their own choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Will give it a try
    Let's say in your river analogy we were building the dam to overt a coming flood. While everyone is focused on the doom and gloom the flood will cause. Pointing to the cloud cover upstream. Even thou there is evidence that the river has gotten 10 times higher in the past and everything was fine.
    Ok, I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a causal mechanism. What I interpreted the first argument as was that because they climate has changed before, then humans can't change it, which isn't necessarily logically sound. The current environmental conditions on Earth exist largely because of plants, bacteria, and fungi. On the other hand, if temps or water have been higher, it is relevant to ask how much higher and whether humans both existed and were prosperous at the the time in which the conditions were different.

    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Climate models have not just been wrong, but way wrong.
    I also understand this argument, but think that the wrong conclusion is almost always taken from it. As a scientist, and one who has worked with modelling different types of systems, I think that if models are really that bad, then make a better model. That is, the models that are out there can be refuted using the scientific process. It is up to those who think that AGW is bunk to make a better model that both accurately represents what we have seen and predicts future conditions. That is how science works. I often hear "models are too simple" and that type of thing. I have two responses to that: models are what you make them and, more importantly, a model that is as complex as reality is equally as hard to interpret (and probably impossible). So, what I would like to see from those who don't think AGW is legit (I'm open minded to it, and will accept research articles being sent to me) is for them to go ahead and make a better model and to find a crucial flaw in the actual mechanism for AGW.

    Ya feel?

    I agree that this issue is, unfortunately, politicized in just about every bad way on both sides. We should all do more to change that.
    dang

  140. #140
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,889
    There is only one historical record that I believe, not all the fancy, computer generated graphics.

    I've lived in a redwood forest for most of my life, as my kids and now my grandchildren.
    I have access to to land with lots of old growth redwood logs, that were left on the ground because they had minor flaws. These logs were cut 150 years ago and the wood is still perfect. We use them for building berms, bridges and retaining walls on our trails.

    But when I cut them, there is a climate historical record revealed in the slabs. It's called "tree rings". By reading the rings they tell a story of decades long droughts and fires. Decades long wet seasons with flooding. This record has been recorded for over 1500 years. These events keep repeating over and over.

    These events are created by "weather".

    Think about it.

  141. #141
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    There is only one historical record that I believe, not all the fancy, computer generated graphics.

    I've lived in a redwood forest for most of my life, as my kids and now my grandchildren.
    I have access to to land with lots of old growth redwood logs, that were left on the ground because they had minor flaws. These logs were cut 150 years ago and the wood is still perfect. We use them for building berms, bridges and retaining walls on our trails.

    But when I cut them, there is a climate historical record revealed in the slabs. It's called "tree rings". By reading the rings they tell a story of decades long droughts and fires. Decades long wet seasons with flooding. This record has been recorded for over 1500 years. These events keep repeating over and over.

    These events are created by "weather".

    Think about it.


    Well I'm sold Norton. You succeeded in procuring a computer of some sort, successfully connected to the internet and wrote a post, so you clearly have a requisite level of competence. And, I saw tree rings once, so I can't find any factual flaws in your argument. You should send this to the scientists, they may not have thought of this.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by NDD View Post
    That's only because people are shortsighted by nature. Whether you believe AGW or not, there are plenty of reasons to protect the environment. Most people would agree, I think, that pollution of water, land, and air is an infringement on everybody's right to live a healthy life, except by their own choice.



    Ok, I see where you're coming from, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a causal mechanism. What I interpreted the first argument as was that because they climate has changed before, then humans can't change it, which isn't necessarily logically sound. The current environmental conditions on Earth exist largely because of plants, bacteria, and fungi. On the other hand, if temps or water have been higher, it is relevant to ask how much higher and whether humans both existed and were prosperous at the the time in which the conditions were different.



    I also understand this argument, but think that the wrong conclusion is almost always taken from it. As a scientist, and one who has worked with modelling different types of systems, I think that if models are really that bad, then make a better model. That is, the models that are out there can be refuted using the scientific process. It is up to those who think that AGW is bunk to make a better model that both accurately represents what we have seen and predicts future conditions. That is how science works. I often hear "models are too simple" and that type of thing. I have two responses to that: models are what you make them and, more importantly, a model that is as complex as reality is equally as hard to interpret (and probably impossible). So, what I would like to see from those who don't think AGW is legit (I'm open minded to it, and will accept research articles being sent to me) is for them to go ahead and make a better model and to find a crucial flaw in the actual mechanism for AGW.

    Ya feel?

    I agree that this issue is, unfortunately, politicized in just about every bad way on both sides. We should all do more to change that.
    I feel ya

    Agree on the modeling. The info you get out, will only be as good as the info you put in. So bias the input, and the output will be bias as well. From what I understand they're only now working on inputting ocean oscillations, and solar activity. Which is double interesting because... How did they expect to get an accurate prediction without the oceans, and there's no way to predict what the sun will do.

    As far as weather/climate the by far biggest drivers are our position in orbit, the sun's output, and the oceans.
    Let's look at c02. C02 is being made to look like an evil killer when in fact it is essential to life on the planet. It's called a greenhouse gas because it makes things that we need grow. When green things grow they consume more cO2. People spend there entire career working in greenhouses where the c02 is pumped up to 1200 ppm without any ill effects. We are at the omg level of 400 ppm c02 now. So let's dig deeper into that.

    400 ppm is one out of every 2,500. Or .04% of what makes up our atmosphere.
    Even the biggest gw cheerleader would estimate that man's part of that total c02 is 3.4%.
    So that gives us man contributes 13.6 ppm c02, or .00136%

    The oceans control 50 times more c02 than everything above them, including man.
    So if all man stops making anymore c02, we will have a .00136% impact on one 50th the equation.

    Not saying man made c02 isn't having an impact. Simply laying out what that impact actually is
    Last edited by theMeat; 06-08-2017 at 12:04 AM. Reason: Wow, tired, math way off
    Round and round we go

  143. #143
    NDD
    NDD is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    There is only one historical record that I believe, not all the fancy, computer generated graphics.

    I've lived in a redwood forest for most of my life, as my kids and now my grandchildren.
    I have access to to land with lots of old growth redwood logs, that were left on the ground because they had minor flaws. These logs were cut 150 years ago and the wood is still perfect. We use them for building berms, bridges and retaining walls on our trails.

    But when I cut them, there is a climate historical record revealed in the slabs. It's called "tree rings". By reading the rings they tell a story of decades long droughts and fires. Decades long wet seasons with flooding. This record has been recorded for over 1500 years. These events keep repeating over and over.

    These events are created by "weather".

    Think about it.
    You mean the only historical record you believe is tree rings? Or are you alluding to something else?

    Anywho, why do you think that tree rings are a perfect recorder of history? Why do you think that the thing we can measure is the thing itself (as someone interested in plant ecology, these are things that I think about often)? What do you think most dendrochronologists think about AGW?

    Just because some cycles exist, can they not be modified by the actions of organisms? To say no would be to foolishly deny the historical importance that plants and bacteria have had in putting oxygen in our air.

    Think about it.
    dang

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,574
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Wow Wee

    Two common sense posts in a row!
    Quote Originally Posted by Corey Trevor View Post
    No amount of legislation is going to effect the climate, because the climate is directly fed by the sun, not cow farts.
    C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!

    And NDD, I feel ya too. Although it seems to be the 21st century way, I don't believe that picking holes in your opponents argument is a valid substitute for presenting your own facts and answers. And that goes for both sides too....

  145. #145
    NDD
    NDD is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: NDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,577
    Quote Originally Posted by David R View Post
    C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!

    And NDD, I feel ya too. Although it seems to be the 21st century way, I don't believe that picking holes in your opponents argument is a valid substitute for presenting your own facts and answers. And that goes for both sides too....
    I'm only picking holes to try to get people to get to the point. Look at the last post by theMeat - much more substance and exactly the kind of refutation one needs to feel compelled to look into the situation in more detail again. I don't know if the numbers cited are correct, but I could really look it up. I'm just not going to right now.
    dang

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Let's look at c02. C02 is being made to look like an evil killer when in fact it is essential to life on the planet. It's called a greenhouse gas because it makes things that we need grow. When green things grow they consume more cO2. People spend there entire career working in greenhouses where the c02 is pumped up to 1200 ppm without any ill effects. We are at the omg level of 400 ppm c02 now. So let's dig deeper into that.

    400 ppm is one out of every 2,500. Or .25% of what makes up our atmosphere.
    Even the biggest gw cheerleader would estimate that man's part of that total c02 is 3.4%.
    So that gives us man contributes 85 ppm c02, or .01%

    The oceans control 50 times more c02 than everything above them, including man.
    So if all man stops making anymore c02, we will have a .01% impact on one 50th the equation.

    Not saying man made c02 isn't having an impact. Simply laying out what that impact actually is
    In a previous thread someone made this same argument and I responded with a long and thoughtful post explaining why it is flawed. Unfortunately it was deemed political and deleted but I will again summarise it here.

    Firstly, for someone who claims to be basing his arguments on science, I have a hard time believing that something (in this case CO2) should be considered to be innocuous because it only represents "1 out of every 2500". That is hardly scientific. Many substances are toxic in the billionth of dilution. I agree that calling CO2 "toxic" is not accurate, and I'm sure you will jump on me for that as an imperfect analogy, which it is, but my point remains that a substance's impact on another process is a combination of its potency AND its concentration. Unless both of these are factored in, statements like "1 in 2500" mean zip squat.

    Secondly, 99% of the air is composed of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These are not greenhouse gases, meaning that they have virtually zero impact on the NET heat budget of the planet and no interaction with infrared radiation which is what causes global warming (since the planet is in fact significantly warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases; it is "warmed" by them). So now your "1 in 2500" red herring is brought down to "1 in 25", when you consider CO2's relative concentration relative to all greenhouse gases (which are water vapour, methane, CO2, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFC's). Not so insignificant anymore is it?

    Water vapour is the predominant greenhouse gas but as I said before, concentration AND potency are what makes a gas' overall contribution to warming. When this is factored in, water still comes out on top, with CO2 close behind followed by methane and the others.

    But the interesting dynamic with water vapour is that as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour. So an increase in CO2 and other gases can cause a bit of warming which is then amplified by water vapour. Another positive reinforcement dynamic is that as the deep oceans and polar lands warm (thaw), they undergo processes that release further amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, causing further warming and so-on.

    This positive reinforcement dynamic explains why the historical temperature record of the planet shows fast transitions from one relatively "stable" climate to another. Of course it is all driven primarily by orbital cycles on multi-thousand year time scales but these tend to remain fairly stable until a tipping point is reached and positive feedback loops like described above kick in and rapidly transition the world into a new climate. This tends to overshoot the forcing by the orbital cycles which is why relative stability ensues for a while. Then eventually the orbital cycles shift back the other way and the reverse of the feedback loops kick in and send the climate into a cooling phase.

    Overall, because the sun is getting warmer over millions of years, CO2 has generally been going down, which has tended to result in a relatively stable climate over millions of years, relatively speaking when you average out the multi-thousand year ice age cycles, and compare it to what temperature it would otherwise be from solar forcing and historical concentrations of CO2. The planet should be entering another short term cooling phase due to orbital cycles but because of the increased greenhouse gases not seen for millions of years, the planet is instead now warming.

    Your statement that atmospheric CO2 is inconsequential compared with the amount stored in the oceans is irrelevant because infrared radiation interacts with CO2 primarily in the atmosphere, not in the water. Furthermore, the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere has actually prevented atmospheric CO2 concentrations from rising even faster than they otherwise would from our emissions!

    Also the argument that CO2 is good for greenhouses therefore good for the world doesn't really hold up on a global scale. This effect is only observed when other factors to growth are not lacking (soil nutrients, water), which is what greenhouses are for. These other factors are more important in limiting global production, not CO2. Increased CO2 would result in other negative impacts to the environment which would on balance tend to offset production gains. But the main point I want to make is that since the Industrial Revolution, the total net primary production of the planet has gone down by about 5%. Over this whole time CO2 has been increasing. Any argument that CO2 will increase global production is completely at odds with the last few hundred years of data. The reason for this is all the other bad things we do to the planet which more than offset any increases from CO2. To think that these bad things are now going to stop, especially as population keeps going up, is fantasy.
    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  147. #147
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,098
    How come I never hear about the benefits of global warming. It's all gloom and doom. Are there any upsides that we should weigh against the negatives?
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Is it blue on one side and white on the other or did you buy two of whatever that is?

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    How come I never hear about the benefits of global warming. It's all gloom and doom. Are there any upsides that we should weigh against the negatives?
    I think there are some "positives". One will be that people will be able to live in higher latitudes and farm there. This is of course only a positive for people, not for the animals and ecosystems that currently live there and would be displaced by those people!

    For agribusiness which is able to provide the other necessities for plant growth, they will see increased agriculture production. Whether that results in an overall increase in food supply to the world given the other negative impacts, who knows for sure. I would doubt it.

    That's about all I can think of.
    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Markbc
    I'm sorry. Mean no offense. Have read some of your posts, and have a hard time taking you serious. If it makes you feel any better, your humor works for me,
    I don't know if it's because I'm tired, or because I've heard you swear up and down saying things like the world will be in total anarchy and economic collapse over an energy shortage, which according to your calculations we are way overdue, and in fact the opposite has happened.
    Do not wish to poke holes in your argument, because there's way too many, and don't feel like typing 3 pages to cover them all. So you're wrong that I'm going to jump all over you too. Because of those reasons, and your creative math, found it hard to get through that post, to be honest. A few red herring, and some other phrases, and you get from one in 2,500 to one in 25. Pretty cool.
    Because it's the only thing I didn't skim over, and is not only wrong but relevant to topic, I will say that c02 doesn't follow water closely as far as content/percentage in our atmosphere. C02 is 400ppm, and water is 10,000. No matter how many red herring you throw at it
    Round and round we go

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    I will say that c02 doesn't follow water closely as far as content/percentage in our atmosphere. C02 is 400ppm, and water is 10,000. No matter how many red herring you throw at it
    CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour so although water is in much higher concentration, its overall forcing to the greenhouse effect is only about double that of CO2. Again, it goes back to what I said about concentration AND potency equals overall effect.
    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_BC View Post
    CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than water vapour so although water is in much higher concentration, its overall forcing to the greenhouse effect is only about double that of CO2. Again, it goes back to what I said about concentration AND potency equals overall effect.
    Yup, except water actually does drive the climate, were c02 has never. Until, supposedly, now

    Glad you explained that. Thought you meant c02 closely follows water, when you said c02 closely follows water

    Warmer air will hold more water, but not nearly the factor in terms of how it effects climate, as how much more warmer water/oceans put more water in to atmosphere
    Round and round we go

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Yup, except water actually does drive the climate, were c02 has never. Until, supposedly, now
    So you agree that the overall contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is about half that of water (in other words, you admit that your previous 1 in 2500 statement is irrelevant), which means between the two of them, 1/3 is CO2 and 2/3 is water), yet you say that CO2 doesn't drive the climate? That makes no sense. While the predominant driver is water (which does have hard upper limits to concentration in the air simply due to the saturation ceiling), to presume that something which has 1/2 the impact as water vapour, plus all the other positive feedback contributions I explained earlier, won't drive the climate if its concentration is drastically changed, I find illogical.
    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  153. #153
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post

    400 ppm is one out of every 2,500. Or .25% of what makes up our atmosphere.
    Even the biggest gw cheerleader would estimate that man's part of that total c02 is 3.4%.
    So that gives us man contributes 85 ppm c02, or .01%

    Mark_BC is correct here, this line of argument is completely spurious. CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas, irrespective of the fact that its a relatively small amount relative to other atmospheric ingredients. The effect is easily measured in a laboratory, shining light through various concentrations of air/CO2, and measuring transmission, similarly with water vapour and heat absorption for varying levels of CO2.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...termediate.htm
    Conclusion
    There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.


    Your argument is akin to, "How can arsenic poison me if I'm only getting 70mg in my water. I eat a whole KG of food per day!".

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    My argument was that people contribute .00136%. Considering how much higher c02 has been in our past, it is not akin to arsenic in your diet. That would be a completely different argument, but nice try. Nor arguing that c02 isn't more potent than water. Just pointed out that he said they closely followed, when in fact they are not close, at all. Unless you consider 10,000 close to 400, and if that's the case I think you should write me a check payable to.... Methane is a much more potent gas. Just one of my farts will prove that, but again, A completely different argument
    Round and round we go

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_BC View Post
    So you agree that the overall contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is about half that of water (in other words, you admit that your previous 1 in 2500 statement is irrelevant), which means between the two of them, 1/3 is CO2 and 2/3 is water), yet you say that CO2 doesn't drive the climate? That makes no sense. While the predominant driver is water (which does have hard upper limits to concentration in the air simply due to the saturation ceiling), to presume that something which has 1/2 the impact as water vapour, plus all the other positive feedback contributions I explained earlier, won't drive the climate if its concentration is drastically changed, I find illogical.
    Where do get this from? Just look at your first sentence. Never said c02 is half of water by any means or measure. So the rest of your post which is based on that, althou sounds very smart, makes no sense
    And while water having a saturation ceiling is right, and pretty clear, where c02's is not. There is a fairly clear ceiling of how much co2 can effect radiation, and wavelengths, as Procter posted, which btw makes sense, and is relevant to topic
    Round and round we go

  156. #156
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_BC View Post
    In a previous thread someone made this same argument and I responded with a long and thoughtful post explaining why it is flawed. Unfortunately it was deemed political and deleted but I will again summarise it here.

    Firstly, for someone who claims to be basing his arguments on science, I have a hard time believing that something (in this case CO2) should be considered to be innocuous because it only represents "1 out of every 2500". That is hardly scientific. Many substances are toxic in the billionth of dilution. I agree that calling CO2 "toxic" is not accurate, and I'm sure you will jump on me for that as an imperfect analogy, which it is, but my point remains that a substance's impact on another process is a combination of its potency AND its concentration. Unless both of these are factored in, statements like "1 in 2500" mean zip squat.

    Secondly, 99% of the air is composed of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These are not greenhouse gases, meaning that they have virtually zero impact on the NET heat budget of the planet and no interaction with infrared radiation which is what causes global warming (since the planet is in fact significantly warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases; it is "warmed" by them). So now your "1 in 2500" red herring is brought down to "1 in 25", when you consider CO2's relative concentration relative to all greenhouse gases (which are water vapour, methane, CO2, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFC's). Not so insignificant anymore is it?

    Water vapour is the predominant greenhouse gas but as I said before, concentration AND potency are what makes a gas' overall contribution to warming. When this is factored in, water still comes out on top, with CO2 close behind followed by methane and the others.

    But the interesting dynamic with water vapour is that as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour. So an increase in CO2 and other gases can cause a bit of warming which is then amplified by water vapour. Another positive reinforcement dynamic is that as the deep oceans and polar lands warm (thaw), they undergo processes that release further amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, causing further warming and so-on.

    This positive reinforcement dynamic explains why the historical temperature record of the planet shows fast transitions from one relatively "stable" climate to another. Of course it is all driven primarily by orbital cycles on multi-thousand year time scales but these tend to remain fairly stable until a tipping point is reached and positive feedback loops like described above kick in and rapidly transition the world into a new climate. This tends to overshoot the forcing by the orbital cycles which is why relative stability ensues for a while. Then eventually the orbital cycles shift back the other way and the reverse of the feedback loops kick in and send the climate into a cooling phase.

    Overall, because the sun is getting warmer over millions of years, CO2 has generally been going down, which has tended to result in a relatively stable climate over millions of years, relatively speaking when you average out the multi-thousand year ice age cycles, and compare it to what temperature it would otherwise be from solar forcing and historical concentrations of CO2. The planet should be entering another short term cooling phase due to orbital cycles but because of the increased greenhouse gases not seen for millions of years, the planet is instead now warming.

    Your statement that atmospheric CO2 is inconsequential compared with the amount stored in the oceans is irrelevant because infrared radiation interacts with CO2 primarily in the atmosphere, not in the water. Furthermore, the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere has actually prevented atmospheric CO2 concentrations from rising even faster than they otherwise would from our emissions!

    Also the argument that CO2 is good for greenhouses therefore good for the world doesn't really hold up on a global scale. This effect is only observed when other factors to growth are not lacking (soil nutrients, water), which is what greenhouses are for. These other factors are more important in limiting global production, not CO2. Increased CO2 would result in other negative impacts to the environment which would on balance tend to offset production gains. But the main point I want to make is that since the Industrial Revolution, the total net primary production of the planet has gone down by about 5%. Over this whole time CO2 has been increasing. Any argument that CO2 will increase global production is completely at odds with the last few hundred years of data. The reason for this is all the other bad things we do to the planet which more than offset any increases from CO2. To think that these bad things are now going to stop, especially as population keeps going up, is fantasy.
    Easily the most sensible post on here, thanks Mark! This one will run and run like it always does tho...
    It's all Here. Now.

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Oil has a Tesla problem. But when will it hit? - Jun. 7, 2017

    "Consider these predictions from Morgan Stanley, a big believer in the potential of electric cars. The investment bank predicted in a recent report that electric vehicles could account for an incredible 50% to 60% of global light vehicle sales by 2040. A world of "shared, autonomous and electric transport is coming," Morgan Stanley analysts led by Adam Jonas wrote."

    This is what I think - eventually, fossil fuels will get eased out by modern technology.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Oil has a Tesla problem. But when will it hit? - Jun. 7, 2017

    "Consider these predictions from Morgan Stanley, a big believer in the potential of electric cars. The investment bank predicted in a recent report that electric vehicles could account for an incredible 50% to 60% of global light vehicle sales by 2040. A world of "shared, autonomous and electric transport is coming," Morgan Stanley analysts led by Adam Jonas wrote."

    This is what I think - eventually, fossil fuels will get eased out by modern technology.
    Great post. It shows you have an open mind. An open mind is a powerful mind.
    Smart money agrees, and so do I. Tesla made his tech public, so it's not just tesla that will cause this. And it's not only cars. The timeline is a lil fuzzy tho. Mostly because as alt energy gets more affordable, it will phase out fossil fuels. Which in turn will lower the cost of fossil fuels.
    Round and round we go

  159. #159
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Oil has a Tesla problem. But when will it hit? - Jun. 7, 2017

    "Consider these predictions from Morgan Stanley, a big believer in the potential of electric cars. The investment bank predicted in a recent report that electric vehicles could account for an incredible 50% to 60% of global light vehicle sales by 2040. A world of "shared, autonomous and electric transport is coming," Morgan Stanley analysts led by Adam Jonas wrote."

    This is what I think - eventually, fossil fuels will get eased out by modern technology.




    Only by people that can afford them. At 100,000 a copy there are places that the Toyota Hi-Lux will be the dominant mode for far longer than that.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  160. #160
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,943
    I hadn't checked on this topic in a couple of days. Several great posts here. Nice.
    Goya! It's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. Livin in an Idiocracy.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Only by people that can afford them. At 100,000 a copy there are places that the Toyota Hi-Lux will be the dominant mode for far longer than that.
    Didn't computers used to cost over $1,000 for a desktop? Now you can buy a very decent laptop for around $300. Technology advances and prices come down.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Only by people that can afford them. At 100,000 a copy there are places that the Toyota Hi-Lux will be the dominant mode for far longer than that.
    They are hi end cars, with impressive specs, and tesla knows that but doesn't care. He's making a ton of money and has a waiting list, so...
    Electric cars don't need 4 sec 0-60 times, and can and will be made more affordable
    The best shot in the arm alt energy could get, is a couple of consecutive well placed natural disasters that cut down oil production, which drives up the price of oil for a long enough period of time
    Round and round we go

  163. #163
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    ...This is what I think - eventually, fossil fuels will get eased out by modern technology.
    Not for a very long time.

    There are a few preliminary designs for electric trucks, and a couple experimental prototypes. None are showing any promise. The batteries required weigh more than the cargo. So unless someone comes up with a whole new battery technology, not just tinkering with current chemical batteries, electric trucks remain a fantasy. We are even further away from powering aircraft and large ships. Plastics, lubricants, and other petrochemicals will still be needed. Perhaps someday a new method of synthesizing long complex carbon chains from simple plant materials will be discovered. Right now that is the holy grail of alternative fuels. Current methods require larger energy inputs than the synthetic molecule holds. It is a physics problem, not a chemistry or engineering problem.

    Currently, roughly 70% of US oil consumption is transportation fuel. The most optimistic (i.e. delusional) projections show electric cars eventually replacing half the vehicles on the road. That would reduce US oil consumption by ~35%. Given the US population will continue to grow and want cars, electric cars alone will not cure AGW.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Didn't computers used to cost over $1,000 for a desktop? Now you can buy a very decent laptop for around $300. Technology advances and prices come down.
    They cost hundreds of thousands, took up a whole room, and were hard to operate and problematic. Now you can fit more reliable, easier to use computing power in your pocket, for a few hundred bucks.
    And there was plenty of nay Sayers who couldn't see the future back then too
    Round and round we go

  165. #165
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Didn't computers used to cost over $1,000 for a desktop? Now you can buy a very decent laptop for around $300. Technology advances and prices come down.



    The tech is widely available, yet prices are not coming down, does not reconcile.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  166. #166
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    They cost hundreds of thousands, took up a whole room, and were hard to operate and problematic. Now you can fit more reliable, easier to use computing power in your pocket, for a few hundred bucks.
    And there was plenty of nay Sayers who couldn't see the future back then too
    True. It's just that the progression battery performance has been much slower due to physical limitations. Doesn't mean we won't see a big breakthrough, but thus far it's been slow incremental progress. And in the end we are just building a better bucket for energy and still have to figure out how to fill it.

    Fossil fuels are cheap, potent, and addictive. Going to alternative energy is like switching from heroin to Tylenol with codeine. Right now we are shooting up like there is no tomorrow. How long it can last without serious consequences is an unknown IMO. Sorry if this is cynical, but my belief is the human race will only stop burning fossil fuels when they run out or get too hard to extract.

    I'm a skeptic by nature. I've been fed a lifetime of BS from all different sources. And when GW proponents started attacking skeptics as flat-earthers and shutting down the debate, I became more of a skeptic. That being said, common sense tells me it is not a good idea to extract carbon-based fuels out of the earth at an absolutely staggering rate and keep cranking it up with no end in sight.
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Is it blue on one side and white on the other or did you buy two of whatever that is?

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    True. It's just that the progression battery performance has been much slower due to physical limitations. Doesn't mean we won't see a big breakthrough, but thus far it's been slow incremental progress. And in the end we are just building a better bucket for energy and still have to figure out how to fill it.

    Fossil fuels are cheap, potent, and addictive. Going to alternative energy is like switching from heroin to Tylenol with codeine. Right now we are shooting up like there is no tomorrow. How long it can last without serious consequences is an unknown IMO. Sorry if this is cynical, but my belief is the human race will only stop burning fossil fuels when they run out or get too hard to extract.

    I'm a skeptic by nature. I've been fed a lifetime of BS from all different sources. And when GW proponents started attacking skeptics as flat-earthers and shutting down the debate, I became more of a skeptic. That being said, common sense tells me it is not a good idea to extract carbon-based fuels out of the earth at an absolutely staggering rate and keep cranking it up with no end in sight.
    Totally agree. Except think tech will win out by making alt energy more cost effective, before we run out of fossil fuel sources to burn
    Round and round we go

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    a friend of mine recently wrote up a nice summary on global warming that I happen to agree with and hopefully can recall from memory:

    (1) Is there GW? Yes, very likely, but how much is uncertain.
    (2) Is there element of GW caused by humans? Yes, very likely but degree is uncertain.
    (3) what are the benefits and costs due to human caused GW? Very much a wild guess, we don't know.
    (4). If we believe today that there is a Net Cost, what is the likelihood that public policy makers address it effectively? This is easily ZERO.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  169. #169
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by cjsb View Post
    a friend of mine recently wrote up a nice summary on global warming that I happen to agree with and hopefully can recall from memory:

    (1) Is there GW? Yes, very likely, but how much is uncertain.
    (2) Is there element of GW caused by humans? Yes, very likely but degree is uncertain.
    (3) what are the benefits and costs due to human caused GW? Very much a wild guess, we don't know.
    (4). If we believe today that there is a Net Cost, what is the likelihood that public policy makers address it effectively? This is easily ZERO.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    More importantly, if the public (voters) could foresee the impacts complying with the spirit and intent of the Paris Accords would entail, would they support it? -- an emphatic NO!

    Full compliance is not merely electric cars, cloth bags, and new light bulbs. It would involve a total restructuring of western culture, social structure, and economy.
    The abolition of privately owned automobiles.
    Single family detached homes would only be affordable by the wealthy elite.
    You would be allocated housing based upon family size and other need factors. Your desires and finances would be irrelevant.
    Electricity would be rationed and allocated with strict penalties for excess use.
    Government permission would be required to purchase electric appliances and devices.
    All travel, including personal recreational travel, would be regulated.
    Many foods would disappear from your local market, as the cost of transportation would render them unaffordable.
    Other foods would be only seasonally available, as refrigerated storage becomes too expensive.
    Some have advocated the right to have children should be regulated.

    Every one of these has been suggested as necessary to achieve the CO2 reductions specified in the Accords. Does anyone seriously think the voters would approve these measures? Any elected official that supported this platform would soon be out of office.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    More importantly, if the public (voters) could foresee the impacts complying with the spirit and intent of the Paris Accords would entail, would they support it? -- an emphatic NO!

    Full compliance is not merely electric cars, cloth bags, and new light bulbs. It would involve a total restructuring of western culture, social structure, and economy.
    The abolition of privately owned automobiles.
    Single family detached homes would only be affordable by the wealthy elite.
    You would be allocated housing based upon family size and other need factors. Your desires and finances would be irrelevant.
    Electricity would be rationed and allocated with strict penalties for excess use.
    Government permission would be required to purchase electric appliances and devices.
    All travel, including personal recreational travel, would be regulated.
    Many foods would disappear from your local market, as the cost of transportation would render them unaffordable.
    Other foods would be only seasonally available, as refrigerated storage becomes too expensive.
    Some have advocated the right to have children should be regulated.

    Every one of these has been suggested as necessary to achieve the CO2 reductions specified in the Accords. Does anyone seriously think the voters would approve these measures? Any elected official that supported this platform would soon be out of office.
    Yes. Think people would vote yes while not knowing or believing any of the points you bring up
    Round and round we go

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    More importantly, if the public (voters) could foresee the impacts complying with the spirit and intent of the Paris Accords would entail, would they support it? -- an emphatic NO!

    Full compliance is not merely electric cars, cloth bags, and new light bulbs. It would involve a total restructuring of western culture, social structure, and economy.
    The abolition of privately owned automobiles.
    Single family detached homes would only be affordable by the wealthy elite.
    You would be allocated housing based upon family size and other need factors. Your desires and finances would be irrelevant.
    Electricity would be rationed and allocated with strict penalties for excess use.
    Government permission would be required to purchase electric appliances and devices.
    All travel, including personal recreational travel, would be regulated.
    Many foods would disappear from your local market, as the cost of transportation would render them unaffordable.
    Other foods would be only seasonally available, as refrigerated storage becomes too expensive.
    Some have advocated the right to have children should be regulated.

    Every one of these has been suggested as necessary to achieve the CO2 reductions specified in the Accords. Does anyone seriously think the voters would approve these measures? Any elected official that supported this platform would soon be out of office.
    I am an economist by profession and work in the energy industry. I'll provide a more real world example of the point that you are raising. Wholesale energy market participants recently attended a conference in DC where the main topic was basically how can wholesale markets accommodate state policies like renewable portfolio standards? Typically, no one could even come close to agreeing on an approach. However, the one thing that was close to unanimous was the need to price carbon. Makes sense. However, nearly anyone speaking on this unanimous agreement also quickly added that the price would need to be so high, they used New England as an example, to achieve state goals that it it would be politically untenable. The cost would simply be enormous.

    Just look at China, they'll never consider such taxes because of the political instability it will cause internally.

    There was someone somewhere who said something like "It's a rich man's problem." I, however, and much more optimistic. All one need do is look to advances in space travel/exploration--it is a field filled with hope and unbounded because it relies on human capital, ingenuity and creativity.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BCTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by cjsb View Post
    All one need do is look to advances in space travel/exploration--it is a field filled with hope and unbounded because it relies on human capital, ingenuity and creativity. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Interesting point. There may be energy sources on asteroids or other planets that could be clean, renewable and much more powerful than fossil fuels.

  173. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,580
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Interesting point. There may be energy sources on asteroids or other planets that could be clean, renewable and much more powerful than fossil fuels.
    That is a possibility, and mining the moon is a real possibility. But my main point is that you have a field of scientists and engineers that i would characterize as full of hope for the future. In fact, although i am no big fan, I note that Elon Musk made a comment at a recent TED about his interest in space travel/exploration being fueled by his need for hope.

    When I compare that field to the field of conflators, alarmists, and researchers with zero integrity who cannot even discuss the positives of GW, or the worst--the politically motivated who respond with such ignorant and deplorable things like "deniers". The latter are just zealots and political hacks, they don't have any understanding of the issue, just blindly seeking political power.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  174. #174
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by cjsb View Post
    ... However, the one thing that was close to unanimous was the need to price carbon. Makes sense. However, nearly anyone speaking on this unanimous agreement also quickly added that the price would need to be so high, they used New England as an example, to achieve state goals that it it would be politically untenable. The cost would simply be enormous.

    Just look at China, they'll never consider such taxes because of the political instability it will cause internally.
    Carbon taxes are self defeating in the long run. The cost of fuel is integral in the price of nearly every consumer good. A high carbon tax would raise the cost of everything, not just fuel. This will raise inflation, and anything tied to inflation -- including wages and government payments. So the real cost of the carbon tax, and the relative value of the revenue raised, will be lessened. Once the economy adjusts to the higher cost of fuel the present fuel consumption pattern will return. We already have seen this with increases in gas taxes. After an initial decline in consumption it goes back up to previous levels, or more.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    253
    Anyone care to post what they personally do to help the environment? And did you agree with Trump pulling out of the Paris accord?
    We dry our cloth's outside on a line weather permitting.
    I commute to work via bicycle.
    Recycle metals, no other recycling around here.
    No house ac. Winter time thermostat set to 62F.
    Energy efficient furnace and roof updates.
    The roof used our lifetime energy credits with the IRS, which is less then the $8000 credit/subsidy for buying a Tesla.
    Happy with Trump's pullout from Paris.
    Last edited by WMBigs; 06-08-2017 at 05:06 PM. Reason: clarification

  176. #176
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by BCTJ View Post
    Interesting point. There may be energy sources on asteroids or other planets that could be clean, renewable and much more powerful than fossil fuels.
    EARTH FIRST! We'll stripmine the other planets later.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  177. #177
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by WMBigs View Post
    Anyone care to post what they personally do to help the environment? And did you agree with Trump pulling out of the Paris accord? ...
    I tepidly support the withdrawal. I do not think the accords will accomplish anything meaningful with or without the U.S. We could stay in and pretend we are 'good global citizens' like all the other countries then ignore enacting the needed legislation. Or we could be honest about it.

    No AC in our house, but here a hot day is 90.
    Winter thermostat is set at 55, because we are in an RV in Arizona most of the winter. We put solar panels on the RV roof and used the tax credit to pay down the RV loan. (yes, that is legal!)
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  178. #178
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,450
    The accords are a simple redistribution of wealth that will be eaten up by corruption leaving little funding to do anything measurable.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mark_BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792


    All I am saying is give pizza chants

  180. #180
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Is it blue on one side and white on the other or did you buy two of whatever that is?

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Round and round we go

  182. #182
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,468
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    I'll bet he farts tho, like a mega-cow...
    It's all Here. Now.

  183. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    I'll bet he farts tho, like a mega-cow...
    Wouldn't be surprised, he does like bombs
    Round and round we go

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    There is only one historical record that I believe, not all the fancy, computer generated graphics.

    I've lived in a redwood forest for most of my life, as my kids and now my grandchildren.
    I have access to to land with lots of old growth redwood logs, that were left on the ground because they had minor flaws. These logs were cut 150 years ago and the wood is still perfect. We use them for building berms, bridges and retaining walls on our trails.

    But when I cut them, there is a climate historical record revealed in the slabs. It's called "tree rings". By reading the rings they tell a story of decades long droughts and fires. Decades long wet seasons with flooding. This record has been recorded for over 1500 years. These events keep repeating over and over.

    These events are created by "weather".

    Think about it.
    Since we pulled out of Paris there has been one article after the other on the attack. With al gore on an endless round of interviews with his new found popularity showing off his hockey stick. Given that and what Norton brings up in this post, the hockey stick deserves a revisit.

    The hockey stick uses tree ring data until around the beginning of the 1900s where it switches to thermometer readings. This is a little know fact and pretty easily checked by anyone seeking the truth. You can't use tree ring data and then switch to thermometer because the tree ring data no longer supports your "theory". That's not science, that's deception, or fiction to make the plot of a movie where reality is not interesting enough to make a movie.
    Name:  image.gif
Views: 177
Size:  19.0 KB

    Except when you make a movie that's supposed to be based on science and reality, you can't base the whole movie on a snapshot of what's real, unless you're trying to deceive. Here's your hockey stick
    Climate change-img_1750.jpg
    Round and round we go

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigjunk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    258
    Don't know if global warming is real or not and no one else does either. The politics and money to be made is harsh on this issue. The Earth constantly changes temp no matter what so there is no real way to know if or how much temp changes are caused by humans without 1000's or tens of thousands of years worth of monitoring the temps world wide.
    The majority of planet Earth is cold a large portion of the year and about 1/3 of the planet is to cold for humans year round. Seems like global worming could be a good thing depending on where you live.
    Canada= the new Bahamas.
    Pollution in the air is real and can be measured. No matter if global warming is factual or not it is certainly helpful to not pollute the air with burning fuel. Caring and acting are not the same.

    As far as someone doing their part= Wanting to feel good about yourself or having others think your a good person is far more important to most people than actually doing anything.

  186. #186
    Pipe Dreamer
    Reputation: Cornfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    5,348
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    I'll bet he farts tho, like a mega-cow...


    Sorry
    This space intentionally left blank. We apologise for any inconvenience.

  187. #187
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigjunk1 View Post
    Don't know if global warming is real or not and no one else does either. The politics and money to be made is harsh on this issue. The Earth constantly changes temp no matter what so there is no real way to know if or how much temp changes are caused by humans without 1000's or tens of thousands of years worth of monitoring the temps world wide.
    The majority of planet Earth is cold a large portion of the year and about 1/3 of the planet is to cold for humans year round. Seems like global worming could be a good thing depending on where you live.
    Canada= the new Bahamas.
    Pollution in the air is real and can be measured. No matter if global warming is factual or not it is certainly helpful to not pollute the air with burning fuel. Caring and acting are not the same.

    As far as someone doing their part= Wanting to feel good about yourself or having others think your a good person is far more important to most people than actually doing anything.
    I am looking forward to a nice warm bikepacking trip across Greenland.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  188. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    I am looking forward to a nice warm bikepacking trip across Greenland.
    Not going to happen anytime soon. Greenland ice sheet is at all time high
    Round and round we go

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Couple of developing climate/weather related points worthy of bringing up on this thread

    The mid 50s were the heyday for hurricane events for the USA.
    Climate change-img_1765.jpgBecause of Atlantic sea temps. We're it was warm to the south, cool to the north. Same thing is shaping up now
    Climate change-img_1764.jpg

    And secondly, Arctic summertime sea ice pretty way below normal. Clearly way below what we've had for years.
    Climate change-img_1766.jpg
    Along that same secondly point, the week El Niño is fading fast, and sea surface temps are dropping all over the place. The cool phase of the pdo that we entered a few years ago is showing itself
    Round and round we go

  190. #190
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    539
    The thing I do not get, if CO2 is the problem, why don't we plant TREES! So simple to help reduce CO2, but instead we bulldoze hills and mountains to put in windmills, would it not be better not to cut the trees down and stop urban sprawl and clearcutting?

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by LargeMan View Post
    The thing I do not get, if CO2 is the problem, why don't we plant TREES! So simple to help reduce CO2, but instead we bulldoze hills and mountains to put in windmills, would it not be better not to cut the trees down and stop urban sprawl and clearcutting?
    You'd think so, wouldn't you... but as a species we're busy cutting down existing stuff.

  192. #192
    heaven help me
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,889
    There's no money in trees, unless you cut them down.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by norton55 View Post
    There's no money in trees, unless you cut them down.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3,643
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Greenland ice sheet is at all time high
    That's news to me. Where did this statement come from?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  195. #195
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by LargeMan View Post
    The thing I do not get, if CO2 is the problem, why don't we plant TREES! So simple to help reduce CO2, but instead we bulldoze hills and mountains to put in windmills, would it not be better not to cut the trees down and stop urban sprawl and clearcutting?
    Plant and harvest when appropriate. Old growth does not remove CO2 from the air. It stores a lot of carbon but is not removing any more. In late senescence old growth forests are net carbon emitters as death and decay exceeds new growth. To maximize forests as carbon sinks you need to harvest them when the growth rate just begins to slow. Then store the wood inside the walls of buildings. Clear-cutting at the right time and replanting are part of that process.

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    That's news to me. Where did this statement come from?
    Plenty of info on the subject. It's not a secret. Although you will have to dig through tons of info that point to Greenland summertime melt being bigger than usual, with little to no mention that it should be because it's wintertime growth is huge
    Round and round we go

  197. #197
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54 View Post
    Plant and harvest when appropriate. Old growth does not remove CO2 from the air. It stores a lot of carbon but is not removing any more. In late senescence old growth forests are net carbon emitters as death and decay exceeds new growth. To maximize forests as carbon sinks you need to harvest them when the growth rate just begins to slow. Then store the wood inside the walls of buildings. Clear-cutting at the right time and replanting are part of that process.
    Not to mention:

    I've never, ever seen a wind turbine in any kind of forest.

    Ever.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,981
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Not to mention:

    I've never, ever seen a wind turbine in any kind of forest.

    Ever.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Wind turbines are becoming more and more a thing in forests.
    You never see them because, umm, they're in the forest.
    Round and round we go

  199. #199
    Meatbomb
    Reputation: Phillbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,844
    Way to many copy / paste post in this thread.. 120 in Phoenix yesterday. BAM !

    It's all Al Gore's fault for inventing the interwebs.

  200. #200
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,743
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Wind turbines are becoming more and more a thing in forests.
    You never see them because, umm, they're in the forest.
    I'm sure they get a lot of wind with those trees in close proximity.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 01-27-2015, 08:31 PM
  2. Dealing with climate change
    By 3pinfinn in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-14-2013, 09:46 AM
  3. Fox gloves. Which is best for our climate
    By ltk1144 in forum Arizona
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 10:23 PM
  4. Closest Warm(er) climate from WI
    By pattongb in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 06:15 PM
  5. Should I run a lighter oil since I live in a cold climate?
    By Lets Try Science in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2011, 10:54 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.