Climate change - consequences? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 522
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    19,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14754
    Likes (Received)
    14905

    Default

    But I'm not from Norwich.

  2. Likes Mark Rand liked this post
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2189
    Likes (Received)
    1456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limy Sami View Post
    But I'm not from Norwich.
    Denmark.
    Tell me it's not Denmark

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midland, Texas
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    516
    Likes (Received)
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TedinNorfolk View Post
    Not noticed any sea level rise at Sunny Hunny ��
    Nor in West Texas!

  5. #44
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    13,726
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2335
    Likes (Received)
    3592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    We have had less solar radiation though - yes?
    A lot less.
    And the climate is cooling
    It's the solar power. All the solar panels in use now are reflecting the sunlight back into space and blocking it from reaching the earth, thus global cooling.

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    19,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14754
    Likes (Received)
    14905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    Denmark.
    Tell me it's not Denmark
    No it's not Denmark

    (Woolwich sarfeaslunnen)

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    579
    Likes (Received)
    429

    Default

    I have heard that there was once an ice age and they don't talk about an ice age now so I guess it must have warmed up a little since then. Nobody talks about this change. Nobody was around then to fly around the world in private jets to accept awards for saving the environment though.

    The only difference now is that there are a bunch of rich people that live in multiple large dwellings and fly around in private planes who desire to gain control over the rest of us.

    What will be the effect? I have enjoyed a pretty nice winter so I'd say so far so good.

  8. Likes Scottl, tdmidget liked this post
  9. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    3,012
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1187
    Likes (Received)
    1252

    Default

    My thought on this is extinction, a lot of it including us. The last time this happened the largest animal to survive weighed 25 lbs and burrowed in the ground. Very important to evade the solar radiation since there will no longer be an ozone layer. Carbon dioxide is only the fuse, the bomb is methane. Carbon dioxide is 148% above pre-industrial levels, methane 250%. Methane is 130 times more efficient at insulating the atmosphere in the first 5 years than carbon dioxide and when it gets into the upper atmosphere it is very efficient at destroying ozone. I learned about this in the late 80s or early 90s so the knowledge is nothing new.

    As for scientific predictions, I think of Stephen Hawkings. He predicted humans would be extinct in 500 years. Not long before he died he revised it to 300 years since we had done nothing to avert it. I wonder what he would predict now? I know he wasn't a climate scientist but he certainly was intelligent.

    As for the near term I live in a zone that transitions from a temperate rain forest to a desert in 30 miles so small changes in climate are pretty obvious. Wine grapes have become a big deal in the last 25 years. It used to be they had a hard time harvesting before the first frost, now that first frost is nearly 8 weeks later so no problem. The fruit orchards are being converted to vineyards. We have had 4 or 5 pine beetle blights in the last 30 years, I think 1 in 100 years was the norm. It has really killed off a lot of the pine trees making the fires so dangerous they no longer fight them in places. Another new norm is 2 months of the summer being choking smoke from the forest fires where good visibility is 3 miles, which almost never happened 25 years ago. I only see this as getting worse.

    Still, I am an optimist, but I think we are in miracle territory now, it's going to take a miracle for us as a species to survive.

    As for Gordon bringing this up, I think discussing it is a good thing, hopefully, we can keep it relatively constructive, hopefully. As I said, I am an optimist. Rome didn't have to fall, stoicism was what really caused it to fail.

  10. Likes fusker, Tyrone Shoelaces, Greg White liked this post
  11. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    529
    Likes (Received)
    5523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EPAIII View Post
    . . . If it will cost more then it IS LESS EFFICIENT. Dollars tell the whole story.

    Money = resources. That is an exact equation. If you don't believe that, just examine where every penny that you ever had came from. You were probably paid for doing a job. The company used natural resources, . . . Money = resources. That is as mathematically and scientifically true as the laws of physics, and the basic theorems of math.
    Or, not.

    Given that some of us get to print up our own Monopoly money or just create new money through the miracle of fractional banking (maybe 3:1) -- the idea that there is a 1:1 ratio between money and resources is as mathematically and scientifically untrue as can be.

    In a sustainable environment (let's say hunter-gatherer world), resources are pretty much free for the spearing or picking. They're cheap. They're magically renewed. The only cost is the food calories required for their hunting and gathering.

    In an unsustainable environment (say, extracting fossil fuels for most of the energy and then planning to grow the population/economy 4% a year forever) you get booms and busts and sometimes collapse. The actual math and science of this is that it is impossible for us to keep growing an economy that's based on the consumption of finite resources (water, soil, food, coal, oil, gas, clean air, abundant fish). Compound annual growth was great when we got 7% a year on our money (some of that inflation - a favorite economic shell game). It's not so great when it's a one-time-and-gone consumption of the environment.

    One of the interesting (and dismaying) corollaries of extraction-based economies is that they tend to be despotic regimes. A few people get in control of the extraction -- and also the money. Think diamonds and gold in Africa. Oil in Saudi Arabia in Russia. Some of our too-big-to-fail industries in the US. The best quality of life tends to come from balanced economies, where most citizens are working together to add value.

    In an unsustainable environment, stuff gets much more expensive, right up to the point of a bust or collapse. Good news for us is that our Sun will keep providing energy (for food, past eons of fossil fuels, solar, our water cycle, etc.) for maybe another 7 billion years. Hopefully we learn to harvest that energy sustainably and whatever evolves from us a 7 billion years from now figures out what's next.

  12. Likes fusker liked this post
  13. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4899
    Likes (Received)
    4871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve-l View Post
    First Gordon, what happened to your diamond status? The last time I checked, you had 20,000 posts. Second, you are 100% correct. Yes, we are experiencing warming and the human race's attention is on the wrong things. It does not matter why, it just is. We must not create economic suicide, it will only make things worse. Yes, we must reduce our carbon footprint, it makes sense on many fronts, not just climate change. Change is inevitable with everything and everywhere. Nothing ever remains the same. The earth has experienced climate change many times in its past. It will have consequences of course and it will probably happen fast. Our efforts should be centered on managing those consequences and it isn't at the moment.
    Care to explain why reducing our "carbon footprint" makes sense other than the theory of CO2 caused climate change? "Carbon" is not a pollutant and even if the theory of AGW is correct neither is CO2 itself but rather a "greenhouse gas" along with such things as water vapor. CO2 is essential for many plants to thrive and certainly we wouldn't declare water an "environmental poison".

    PS: "sea level rise" is not universal across the planet and in many cases it's not actually rise of the sea but sinking of the land relative to sea level. Some is due to subsidence from extracting groundwater butt much of it is due to plate tectonics. If the plate you are living on is sliding under a neighboring plate and there is nothing you can do about it except create barriers or elevate structures. Venice has been sinking for a very long time as its tectonic plate slides under the Alps.

    Venice Sinking Has Nothing To Do with Climate Change • Italy Travel Ideas

  14. Likes tdmidget, steve45 liked this post
  15. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    209
    Likes (Received)
    1636

    Default

    For me it's simple. I look at a long-scale view of the global temperature record:

    Global temperature record - Wikipedia

    Then look at a short-scale view of the same:

    Global temperature record - Wikipedia

    My conclusion is, "There goes the neighborhood." How high will it go, and how fast? Ida Know. But, for the sake of my kids's and my grandkids's futures, I'd like us to try to figure it out.

    Maybe you don't believe the data? OK, that's your perogative, but this dataset is pretty darn simple, and it's practically inconceivable that it has been fudged for some nefarious agenda.

    Regards.

    Mike

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    IL/WI border
    Posts
    3,360
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1180
    Likes (Received)
    1045

    Default

    The problem is that many people perceive weather changes as climate changes.

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4899
    Likes (Received)
    4871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    For me it's simple. I look at a long-scale view of the global temperature record:

    Global temperature record - Wikipedia

    Then look at a short-scale view of the same:

    Global temperature record - Wikipedia

    My conclusion is, "There goes the neighborhood." How high will it go, and how fast? Ida Know. But, for the sake of my kids's and my grandkids's futures, I'd like us to try to figure it out.

    Maybe you don't believe the data? OK, that's your perogative, but this dataset is pretty darn simple, and it's practically inconceivable that it has been fudged for some nefarious agenda.

    Regards.

    Mike
    Wikipedia is hardly the ultimate scientific source and even some of the "respected scientists" such as at NOAA have been a little clever with temperature data as explained in this article. Here is one major quote: "The majority of the recent tampering is due to fake data. More than 40% of the current US adjusted data is generated by computer models rather than thermometers."

    Corruption Of The US Temperature Record | Real Climate Science

    About midway down they point out this contradiction between reported temperature trends and actual thermometer data.

    "NOAA shows a large increase in afternoon temperatures since the 1930s."

    "By contrast, the thermometer data from the 1,218 NOAA US Historical Climatology Stations (USHCN) show a decrease in afternoon temepratures."

    That is one reason some in Congress have blocked funding for certain types of "research" at some agencies. Collecting raw data and making it freely available to researchers is one thing, drawing politically inclined conclusions from such data is quite another.

  18. Likes Yan Wo liked this post
  19. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2189
    Likes (Received)
    1456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    ... and it's practically inconceivable that it has been fudged for some nefarious agenda.
    Not really.
    Lot's of wealth distribution and control to be had https://twitter.com/JWSpry/status/1225143760054439938

  20. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    529
    Likes (Received)
    5523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Care to explain why reducing our "carbon footprint" makes sense other than the theory of CO2 caused climate change? . . .
    Reducing the rate at which we burn fuels for energy (coal, oil, gas, wood, peat, cow dung in India) makes sense even for someone who doesn't understand that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases:

    1) Burning them causes air pollution, independently and along with the CO2 since sulfur dioxide, heavy metals, etc. come along for the ride. Ozone issues as well. The resulting air pollution likely costs us near a trillion a year in asthma, COPD, lost work, deaths, damage to infrastructure, acid rain, etc. Now we're even getting pollution from things like Chinese coal plants, as well as our own auto exhausts, older coal plants, etc.

    2) Lowering the use (and thus the demand and high prices) of oil would do more to constrain despotic regimes than most anything else I can imagine. No more hacking up about-to-be-married journalists when they show up at a Turkish embassy. Putin without new nukes and supersonic missiles. Somewhat more likely we see less extremism in the Middle East. China maybe less willing to keep piping and shipping oil to keep North Korea a threat. For our UK members, fewer Premier League teams owned by Emirates and the like.

    3) Coal, oil, and gas are finite resources. They get more and more expensive to pull out of the ground as easily found sources are depleted. Future generations will wonder "you actually just burned this up?" when they want feedstocks for synthetic oils, plastics, etc.

    4) As fossil fuels are depleted it gets both more expensive and riskier to pull them out of the ground. Thus we have oil rig disasters and spills - the Gulf spill, Exxon Valdez, your routine rail car and pipeline accidents. Imagine wiping out our entire $7 billion machine tool industry each year. The annual cost of oil spills and related disasters is more than that. While coal mining is down in the US for purely economic reasons, it's a leading source of deaths and environmental damage elsewhere. With natural gas, we're so far from honest evaluation of the costs and benefits it's hard to know. Personally, I think they buy us time. HOWEVER, we're hiding the costs of fracking to our water supply and recent disclosures show that methane leaks from sloppy drilling operations are an order of magnitude greater problem than originally estimated.

    5) The search for cheap oil has cost us many trillions in Middle East wars and greatly increased the existential risks of terrorism and nuclear war (Iran). It has also turned countries which once had moderate middle classes into despotic regimes - many of them our sworn enemies. For somewhat less than the costs of those wars we could provide universal healthcare, free college or vocational education to those qualified, and fund R&D for energy alternatives for the entire nation. And we're still letting big oil call many of the shots in terms of politics. Heck, even Russia funds it's army and its interference around the world from its gas and oil exports. Cut the value of that oil and gas and they wouldn't have more than a couple rubles to rub together.

  21. Likes fusker, Tyrone Shoelaces, Greg White liked this post
  22. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    630
    Likes (Received)
    2180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    ...Maybe you don't believe the data? OK, that's your perogative, but this dataset is pretty darn simple, and it's practically inconceivable that it has been fudged for some nefarious agenda.
    "This image compares ten reconstructed proxy temperature studies covering the last 2,000 years."...

  23. Likes Yan Wo liked this post
  24. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,940
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4899
    Likes (Received)
    4871

    Default

    Completely disagree, especially about the wars bit. Many of the wars in Africa and other places are over minerals used for many purposes including "green energy". It is the greed of some men, not the uses to which the extracted items are put that causes so much trouble.

    And as for that crack about "even for someone who doesn't understand that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases:" try READING my F'n statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    "Carbon" is not a pollutant and even if the theory of AGW is correct neither is CO2 itself but rather a "greenhouse gas" along with such things as water vapor.
    Such things as water vapor (and methane). Water vapor, CO2, and methane are considered to be the primary green house gases.

  25. Likes steve45 liked this post
  26. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    5,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    587
    Likes (Received)
    2686

    Default

    Steven Hawking was a horse's ass. There are a dozen others in his field who are/were just as 'smart' yet he got all the press. Why? Well...he said what the press wanted to hear and of course he was AFU and in a wheelchair. A media darling. If only he had been black and transgender! I love the assertion that man will be gone in 300 years...it offers a great soundbite that he'll never have to live up to. I personally believe mankind will be gone in about 3 more generations...it won't be due to climate change but more tangible things like dumb-asses eating Tide pods, drug use, and possibly alien attack. But it'll still be a nice day outside when it happens.

    If he was so smart, he shoulda done something useful like inventing a cure for cancer or a cellphone that doesn't suck. Hell...I can make predictions that are just as good as his if I can be long dead before anyone knows if they were good or not.

    It's arrogance on a high level to operate under the idea that mankind is gonna affect the planet's climate. The planet is a big damn place. It's possible, with a concerted effort, to pollute a river. For a while. The entire atmosphere? Uh-uh. Mankind is simply too immaterial. The Earth does what it will.

  27. Likes steve45 liked this post
  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    529
    Likes (Received)
    5523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    . . .
    And as for that crack about "even for someone who doesn't understand that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases:" try READING my F'n statement. . ..
    So you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but our atmosphere trapping solar radiation and heating up the planet partly from it is an unproven or wrong theory? Or that the 2,500,000 pounds of CO2 we put into the air each second (around 31,536,000 times a year) aren't having an effect - it's something else? Or that the recent record years of heat and climate instability (fires in Australia and the US West, hurricane-tornado-wind-flood-storm damage throughout the US, melting ice at the poles, insurance companies refusing coverage) are not indications climate patterns are changing; because there's still ice in the winter?

    No matter. I'd even agree we aren't paying enough attention to methane - but lots of that is also burning-carbon-related. That "crack" about even if someone doesn't understand the science -- there are at least five other compelling reasons to slow down the rate at which we combust the planet -- wasn't really aimed specifically at you Scott. Just those who identified with it.

    As for the link between mainly extraction-based economies (gold, diamonds, oil, etc.) and despots - you seem to miss my point. An economy that's broadly based on things like agriculture, manufacturing, and a variety of creative enterprises needs to educate its people, keep them healthy, and reward them for their contributions. An economy that just has to dig stuff out of the ground to make billions, needs only a few people with guns, some slave or near-slave labor, and willing buyers. Doesn't really matter what happens to the other 90% of the population, far as the despot is concerned.

    Every country has its share of solely self-serving people, as you say. However, in a broad-based economy they have less control and do less damage. Even in the US, where "finance" periodically appropriates near 50% of profits (as in 2007) and buys political favor, we still have countervailing powers.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    netherlands Asten
    Posts
    1,065
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    650
    Likes (Received)
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GregSY View Post
    Steven Hawking was a horse's ass. There are a dozen others in his field who are/were just as 'smart' yet he got all the press. Why? Well...he said what the press wanted to hear and of course he was AFU and in a wheelchair. A media darling. If only he had been black and transgender! I love the assertion that man will be gone in 300 years...it offers a great soundbite that he'll never have to live up to. I personally believe mankind will be gone in about 3 more generations...it won't be due to climate change but more tangible things like dumb-asses eating Tide pods, drug use, and possibly alien attack. But it'll still be a nice day outside when it happens.

    If he was so smart, he shoulda done something useful like inventing a cure for cancer or a cellphone that doesn't suck. Hell...I can make predictions that are just as good as his if I can be long dead before anyone knows if they were good or not.

    It's arrogance on a high level to operate under the idea that mankind is gonna affect the planet's climate. The planet is a big damn place. It's possible, with a concerted effort, to pollute a river. For a while. The entire atmosphere? Uh-uh. Mankind is simply too immaterial. The Earth does what it will.
    i would say that it is arrogance of a very high level to just cast aside what a whole lot of very smart people are saying because one cannot grasp the subject.
    when are you going to invent a cure for cancer?

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    5,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    587
    Likes (Received)
    2686

    Default

    Here's the difference...I'm not on TV, or in the press, dishing out wisdom. If I were, then fair game. See?

    For every Steven Hawking, there is an equally smart person who can tell you just why he was full of shit. That's the sneaky side of being smart - you get to start talking about stuff that few understand - and if they do question you, you just tell them they're too stupid to understand.

    If he had said, just as emphatically, that mankind had done a hell of a job at nature's imperative - survival- the press would have pooh-poohed him and moved on to the next genius. Let's not forget that it is ONLY thanks to the massive advancements of mankind over the past centuries that his sorry ass was even alive. It was the evil corporation that made that fancy wheelchair of his. The evil corporation made the squaukbox he used to talk. The extensive amounts of medical care he received came from evil corporations. If it had been left up to nature, he woulda been dead at 6 hours after birth. It's a harsh world out there amongst the flowers and green grass.

  31. Likes Scottl liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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