Jump to content

Menu

Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare


RegGuheert
 Share

Recommended Posts

From your link:

 

 

 

That's only 6 inches per century.

 

For reference here is what you wrote in a previous post:

 

 

But the reason I ask for where you live is that it various DRASTICALLY from place to place on the Earth.  In Sweden, they are concerned that some of their cities will be KILOMETERS from the shore in the not-to-distant future due to rapidly DROPPING sea level.

 

 

The data since 1900 are not going to be that helpful if the rate is increasing, whicall te meadurements say it is.  Especially in the past 20 years.  The data suggesting two m came out of NASA, but I've seen thoughts that it coulf be 6 m from them as well.  You can look it up on your own if you are really interested.

 

I still don't see why you want to know where I live, it has nothing to do with the question here , other than as an example.  That some places will drop doesn't show that there is no climate change either, I don't see your point at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us say your proposition is right that CO2 has little impact and climate change is a hoax. That does not negate the fact that fossil fuels are not renewable in our lifetime let alone our grandkids and their grandkids lifetimes and is a limited resource. Secondly, extracting fossil fuels is known to very taxing on our environment by polluting waterways and our drinking water and the earth and by destroying ecosystems and even in some cases by causing earthquakes. The let us not forgot how burning fossil fuels does indeed cause air pollution besides CO2. Just look at the devastating poor air quality in China and India. Here in the US we once had major problems with air pollution as well such as in Los Angeles but thanks to the EPA that was cleaned up.

 

So to me, I don't care whether you believe in climate change but really you cannot deny the devastating impact of fossil fuels on our environment which is a fact. I say our government and private industry should invest heavily in renewable energy which is better for all of us and our planet.

 

I am in full agreement with everything you say.  That is one reason I have installed enough solar panels on our home to provide ALL of the over 18 MWh which our nearly-fully-electric house and fully-electric car consume each year.

 

Since I live in VA, I am particularly concerned about the removal of mountaintops (that are subsequently dumped into valleys) that goes on in WV in pursuit of coal.  It is an utter shame.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data since 1900 are not going to be that helpful if the rate is increasing, whicall te meadurements say it is.  Especially in the past 20 years.  The data suggesting two m came out of NASA, but I've seen thoughts that it coulf be 6 m from them as well.  You can look it up on your own if you are really interestedl.

 

No argument. But you still have not provided that data.

 

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument. But you still have not provided that data.

 

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

 

If you are using sea level to try and debunk climate change, they care.

 

I'm not going to provide you with links to sources because I don't have the time when I don't think you will really even read it - so far you are linking all kids of things which simply don't say what you think. 

 

I doubt either of us are able to actually interpret the raw data meaningfully, so there is no point.

 

But you aren't making the case that people find it easy to sort out good sources from bad ones.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the article you linked to didn't say that. It said that fewer clouds and water vapor slowed down the heating effect of greenhouse gasses.

 

The article also said that the warming, although slower lately due to La Nina conditions, was still continuing. Greenhouse effect IS warming the earth, just not as fast as it has in some other times. 

 

Again, they linked it to La Nina, more warmth being transferred to the oceans instead of the atmosphere (which is NOT good!!!) and even to a minor extent from volcanos. All those slowed the greenhouse effect. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The article itself states that the greenhouse effect IS warming the planet. 

 

You linked an article to disprove greenhouse effect but the article doesn't do that. At all. 

 

 

Simply put, fewer clouds means a warmer Earth.  Everything else is a secondary or even a tertiary effect.

 

 

Save

Save

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument. But you still have not provided that data.

 

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

 

Um..nope. I can care about what happens to people that don't live near me. And about coral bleaching. And about lots of stuff not near me. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in full agreement with everything you say.  That is one reason I have installed enough solar panels on our home to provide ALL of the over 18 MWh which our nearly-fully-electric house and fully-electric car consume each year.

 

Since I live in VA, I am particularly concerned about the removal of mountaintops (that are subsequently dumped into valleys) that goes on in WV in pursuit of coal.  It is an utter shame.

 

I am glad to hear this. But I have heard loved ones on the right and also from those in national politics say that fossil fuels are the only way to go and that renewable energy is not worth pursuing at all since to it will never meet all of our needs. I disagree since to me I think it is possible and that naysayers against renewable energy are like those who said we can never fly or go to the moon.

 

I have also heard from those on the right that government should never invest in renewable energy since only private industry should. Well I think our energy needs are national security needs. Also, our country actually already invest in fossil fuels so to speak via tax breaks to these companies. Additionally, since energy is a national security issue then I do think it is appropriate for government to invest in renewable energy too. Heck our government sent us to the moon and with it and all of the technology that was developed private industry and our people also benefited from this government investment.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the article you linked to didn't say that. It said that fewer clouds and water vapor slowed down the heating effect of greenhouse gasses.

 

The article I linked ONLY measured radiation at infrared frequencies.

 

Clouds have a double duty:

1) They have a greenhouse effect (clouds can have as much as 100X the greenhouse effect of a doubling of CO2)

2) They act to reflect the longwave radiation from the Sun back out to space during the daytime.

 

The article did not consider the second effect and a 1% change in global cloud cover has about 1000X the effect of a doubling of CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article I linked ONLY measured radiation at infrared frequencies.

 

Clouds have a double duty:

1) They have a greenhouse effect (clouds can have as much as 100X the greenhouse effect of a doubling of CO2)

2) They act to reflect the longwave radiation from the Sun back out to space during the daytime.

 

The article did not consider the second effect and a 1% change in global cloud cover has about 1000X the effect of a doubling of CO2.

 

So the article you linked to prove your point didn't prove your point, and you knew that, and linked it anyway???

 

Which leaves your point unproven. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument. But you still have not provided that data.

 

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

 

Shouldn't we care?  Doesn't sea level also have to do in part with temperature and doesn't the warming of the oceans have a significant impact on biological/ecological diversity?

 

I think my head is going to explode.  Not sure what this has to do with the "Ministry of Truth."

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to hear this. But I have heard loved ones on the right and also from those in national politics say that fossil fuels are the only way to go and that renewable energy is not worth pursuing at all since to it will never meet all of our needs. I disagree since to me I think it is possible and that naysayers against renewable energy are like those who said we can never fly or go to the moon.

 

I have also heard from those on the right that government should never invest in renewable energy since only private industry should. Well I think our energy needs are national security needs. Also, our country actually already invest in fossil fuels so to speak via tax breaks to these companies. Additionally, since energy is a national security issue then I do think it is appropriate for government to invest in renewable energy too. Heck our government sent us to the moon and with it and all of the technology that was developed private industry and our people also benefited from this government investment.

 

I find this interesting, because in the past, it seemed to be widely aknowledged that all kinds of environmental issues, serious like destroying ones, were going to mean that we would have to significantly change our lifestyles.  Part of that was energy to make silly widgets, as well as just the amount of resources that go into the widgets.

 

I rarely hear about that now - even a lot of environmental sources seem to assume we will keep consuming at the same rate, somehow, just with renewable energy.

 

They used to talk about radically reducing use of automobiles in various ways, now I mostly hear about electric cars.

 

It's a change I distrust, especially since it comes as things are getting a lot worse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we care?  Doesn't sea level also have to do in part with temperature and doesn't the warming of the oceans have a significant impact on biological/ecological diversity?

 

I think my head is going to explode.  Not sure what this has to do with the "Ministry of Truth."

 

 

Yeah, like whole bird colonies failing to reproduce.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point pp is making is that the forces we don't control are so big, that the little we can control is irrelevant.

 

Another point about climate change.  It's not bad for everyone.  It's bad for some, and good for some.  Just like forcing a change in energy sources is bad for some, and good for some.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dh sudies gasses in the atmosphere for a living.  I don't know if this would make him laugh or cry.

 

Please tell your husband thank you, and that just about everyone I know in real life cares enormously whether sea levels rise or warm, and believe it is integral to life as they know it.

 

Hugs,

Nan

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to hear this. But I have heard loved ones on the right and also from those in national politics say that fossil fuels are the only way to go and that renewable energy is not worth pursuing at all since to it will never meet all of our needs.

 

To be honest, there really is some truth to that.  While I don't agree to the "not worth pursuing" part, it is quite true that we have severe limitation with current technologies.  The ONLY way I can meet all of my family's needs with photovoltaics is through the "magic" of net metering.  Squirrels store up nuts for wintertime while we "store" up over 3 MWh of electricity for that period.  Simply put, the farther and farther you get from the equator, the less useful photovoltaics become.

 

Storage is getting cheaper (high-performance home batteries are now down to around $0.015/kWh), but they don't solve the wintertime problem.

 

FWIW, I am not an advocate of the current-generation of wind turbines.  In short, I believe they do more harm than good.  But I am interested in KiteGen as they have an approach which really could make a difference.

 

Electric cars: I love ours!  IMO, they will replace gasoline cars regardless of what anyone thinks or wants.  The battery technology to do it well (and cleanly) is already there or nearly so.  But it will take some time.

 

As far as pursuing it, we need to do so.

 

I disagree since to me I think it is possible and that naysayers against renewable energy are like those who said we can never fly or go to the moon.

 

Photovoltaics absolutely are worth pursuing.  They are so cheap now it makes no sense NOT to install them (below some latitude).

 

Many other things are questionable.

 

I have also heard from those on the right that government should never invest in renewable energy since only private industry should. Well I think our energy needs are national security needs. Also, our country actually already invest in fossil fuels so to speak via tax breaks to these companies. Additionally, since energy is a national security issue then I do think it is appropriate for government to invest in renewable energy too. Heck our government sent us to the moon and with it and all of the technology that was developed private industry and our people also benefited from this government investment.

 

Agreed that energy security is a very important issue.  And distributed generation and storage is the best antidote to various possible threats.

 

My idea is that we should also allow net metering (with TOU charges) from the batteries in our electric cars so that we can balance our overall usage while providing for additional loads that are needed by industry.  Sort of an electricity bourse with distributed (and mobile!) electricity generation and storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this interesting, because in the past, it seemed to be widely aknowledged that all kinds of environmental issues, serious like destroying ones, were going to mean that we would have to significantly change our lifestyles.  Part of that was energy to make silly widgets, as well as just the amount of resources that go into the widgets.

 

I rarely hear about that now - even a lot of environmental sources seem to assume we will keep consuming at the same rate, somehow, just with renewable energy.

 

They used to talk about radically reducing use of automobiles in various ways, now I mostly hear about electric cars.

 

It's a change I distrust, especially since it comes as things are getting a lot worse.

In regards to cars and over-consumption of silly widgets as you say, I think it depends upon where you live. Where I live, many folks here value walkable communities and public transportation and car shares and bike shares and uber. My husband walks to work. I walk my kid to school or take public transportation. We rarely use our car and even thought of giving it up as many do here.

 

 

OTOH I hear to many on the right especially give pronouncements against public transportation which is folly IMHO. Right here where I live, private industry is having having a windfall so to speak due to the extension of our metro system and little walkable cities are springing up around these metro stations. It is amazing to see. Many folks are sick of not having walkable communities .

 

There are also a lot of conscious consumers here trying to reduce and re-use. 

 

I hope to see more of this in our country as well as renewable energy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the article you linked to prove your point didn't prove your point, and you knew that, and linked it anyway???

 

Which leaves your point unproven. 

 

No.  It proves the point.

 

It's quite simple:  The overall greenhouse effect is NOT changing even though CO2 concentration is increasing rapidly.

 

As such, there is nothing to fear from releasing CO2.

 

In fact, the world is rapidly greening with the additional CO2.  This is something that is sorely needed.

 

IMO, the idea of trying to reduce CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to cars and over-consumption of silly widgets as you say, I think it depends upon where you live. Where I live, many folks here value walkable communities and public transportation and car shares and bike shares and uber. My husband walks to work. I walk my kid to school or take public transportation. We rarely use our car and even thought of giving it up as many do here.

 

 

OTOH I hear to many on the right especially give pronouncements against public transportation which is folly IMHO. Right here where I live, private industry is having having a windfall so to speak due to the extension of our metro system and little walkable cities are springing up around these metro stations. It is amazing to see. Many folks are sick of not having walkable communities .

 

There are also a lot of conscious consumers here trying to reduce and re-use. 

 

I hope to see more of this in our country as well as renewable energy.

 

Yes, walkable cities are big.  It's funny about the communities springing up, because it is so predictable, that is what happened before private cars were so common.

 

Do you remember though when they used to talk about earth per person level consumption, and what we'd have to live like to be within sustainable levels?  It was really low.  People were not going to be living what we think of as an average western lifestyle. 

 

I can't remember last time I saw anyone mainsream talk about that level of change, other than maybe George Monbiot. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is another shameful instance of someone believing fake news:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-woman-made-death-threats-to-sandy-hook-parents/2016/12/07/85fa3702-bc9c-11e6-ae79-bec72d34f8c9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0d3371cbd739

 

In fact an old friend of ours even believes this :sad:[/quote

]

My closest neighbor believes Sandy Hook was faked. And Obama is s Muslim, pizzagate, Chem trails, and who knows what else. Oh, werewolves. He's a Vietnam vet who posts meme after meme about vets and the flag.

How do you ever have a normal conversation with him? He's just as likely to knock on my door to offer to plow as he is to shoot me if he ever saw we have a rainbow flag( yes. He's talked about it)

Every link he posts goes to infowars or similar garbage.

 

 

What do you think the disconnect is, with him?

 

It sometimes seems to me that with people like this, they make one link because the accepted explanation just seems unbelievable to them for some reason.  Then, to explain it, they take a leap to accept some conspiracy or to believe that crazy sources are telling the truth, and it leads down all kinds of weird holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

 

Shouldn't we care?  Doesn't sea level also have to do in part with temperature and doesn't the warming of the oceans have a significant impact on biological/ecological diversity?

 

I think my head is going to explode.  Not sure what this has to do with the "Ministry of Truth."

 

The temperature of the oceans has virtually nothing to do with CO2.  CO2 in the atmosphere CANNOT heat the ocean, period.  Heat in the ocean ONLY flows from the ocean to the atmosphere.

 

When it comes to reducing the amount of heat lost from the oceans, CO2 really is a "don't care."  Scientists have measured the effect of infrared from greenhouse gases and clouds on the loss of heat from the ocean at nighttime.  The effect of CO2 is so small that it cannot be measured.  But the effects of clouds CAN be measured.  The surface of the oceans are cooler than the lower layers due to evaporation.  Clouds can reduce this cooling effect by reducing the amount of this temperature drop by 0.1K.  The effect of CO2 is estimated to be about 100X smaller than that with a doubling.  Since we are far from a doubling, the effect to date is likely only 200X smaller.  As a result, the reduction in the temperature of the surface of the oceans (about the top 1 micron) is only 0.0005K.

 

Simply put, the temperature of the oceans really has nothing to do with CO2.

 

BTW, the heat capacity of the ocean is about 2100X that of the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this interesting, because in the past, it seemed to be widely aknowledged that all kinds of environmental issues, serious like destroying ones, were going to mean that we would have to significantly change our lifestyles.  Part of that was energy to make silly widgets, as well as just the amount of resources that go into the widgets.

 

I rarely hear about that now - even a lot of environmental sources seem to assume we will keep consuming at the same rate, somehow, just with renewable energy.

 

They used to talk about radically reducing use of automobiles in various ways, now I mostly hear about electric cars.

 

It's a change I distrust, especially since it comes as things are getting a lot worse.

 

It's a valid concern, and it has a name: Jevon's Paradox.

 

Simply put, increasing efficiency and/or finding new sources of energy have historically led to more, not less, consumption of resources.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. That's quite a helpful comment. Let's hope you and your family are never accused of such nonsense.

 

Criticism accepted.

 

But I'm tired of people trying to tell me that I'm the cause of the hurricane/tornado/tsunami/whatever that destroyed their city/town/home.  It's simply not true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain? It sounds like you mean your heart is happy because your family will be personally enriched at the expense of the long term viability of many costal cities. Do you realize there are parts of South Florida RIGHT NOW that were dry 10 years ago and almost never drain?

I live on the coast too. I'm personally very happy for the economic development of the country and the rollback of onerous and dubious regulation by the EPA that has very little real effect on the climate but a very measurable, deleterious impact on the businesses and property rights of millions of Americans. It's a bad agency that needs major reform.

 

And as someone who lives in a state strangled by federal AND state regulation on resource development, where hundreds of thousands of people depend on water, mineral, and logging rights to survive and real jobs have been really lost to the imaginary doomsday scenarios of sierra club carpet baggers? Super thrilled with the EPA pick. And lots of the othe cabinet picks. Yay.

 

We are now in a state recession and our polar bears are still not drowning, no matter how many stupid commercials have been aired to that effect over the last two decades. I have my own concerns and the likelihood of them being addressed federally is increasing. Of course I'm happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The temperature of the oceans has virtually nothing to do with CO2.  CO2 in the atmosphere CANNOT heat the ocean, period.  Heat in the ocean ONLY flows from the ocean to the atmosphere.

 

When it comes to reducing the amount of heat lost from the oceans, CO2 really is a "don't care."  Scientists have measured the effect of infrared from greenhouse gases and clouds on the loss of heat from the ocean at nighttime.  The effect of CO2 is so small that it cannot be measured.  But the effects of clouds CAN be measured.  The surface of the oceans are cooler than the lower layers due to evaporation.  Clouds can reduce this cooling effect by reducing the amount of this temperature drop by 0.1K.  The effect of CO2 is estimated to be about 100X smaller than that with a doubling.  Since we are far from a doubling, the effect to date is likely only 200X smaller.  As a result, the reduction in the temperature of the surface of the oceans (about the top 1 micron) is only 0.0005K.

 

Simply put, the temperature of the oceans really has nothing to do with CO2.

 

BTW, the heat capacity of the ocean is about 2100X that of the atmosphere.

This is not correct. I am not sure where you are getting your science but it is wrong.

 

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/ocean/

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php?src=share

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are now in a state recession and our polar bears are still not drowning, no matter how many stupid commercials have been aired to that effect over the last two decades. I have my own concerns and the likelihood of them being addressed federally is increasing. Of course I'm happy.

Polar bears are starving.

 

They are also drowning, polar bears can and do swim long distances but with retreating sea ice that makes things very grave for animals that rely on the sea ice for survival.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Criticism accepted.

 

But I'm tired of people trying to tell me that I'm the cause of the hurricane/tornado/tsunami/whatever that destroyed their city/town/home. It's simply not true.

That drives us crazy as well. These things can be designed for too, and it's one of our personal crusades that consumers understand that most of what looks like an 'act of God' level of destruction from seismic, wind, and flying debris in design can actually be minimized or even essentially eliminated through fairly inexpensive design choices and code enforcement in building design. The Fortified program is a great example and the cost is fairly low for implementation on new construction.

 

Events don't kill people by and large, structures do. And a lot can and has been done to augment the IBC to account for that, among many others.

 

That's a whole different pet peeve. We are fighting this on a state level too, that code enforcement would increase for public safety and that there would be home owner's insurance incentives for people adopting things like roof and foundations tiedowns that drastically improve the safety and performance of their dwelling in a design event of a given size.

 

I'm not anti-regulation, but it needs to be evidence based and sensible for the cost both in terms of dollars and restrictions on the free choice of the businesss or individuals it impacts. Especially in places like the EPA it has gone crazy overboard in some key areas. Here's to hoping for some reform. I'd settle for abolishing the entire department federally since there is so much duplication state by state in resources and waste management anyway, but that would take more spine than I think this administration has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. TranquilMind, that is possibly the nicest thing you've ever said. *sniff*

 

2. Reg, you're currently example A of the value of not allowing garbage to flood the media. Others have repeatedly shown that you don't understand the articles you're linking to - which means you're not in a position to understand what is reliable evidence and what is not.

 

3. Arctic Mama, I'm going to direct you to this link by Fact Check.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That drives us crazy as well. These things can be designed for too, and it's one of our personal crusades that consumers understand that most of what looks like an 'act of God' level of destruction from seismic, wind, and flying debris in design can actually be minimized or even essentially eliminated through fairly inexpensive design choices and code enforcement in building design. The Fortified program is a great example and the cost is fairly low for implementation on new construction.

 

Events don't kill people by and large, structures do. And a lot can and has been done to augment the IBC to account for that, among many others.

 

That's a whole different pet peeve. We are fighting this on a state level too, that code enforcement would increase for public safety and that there would be home owner's insurance incentives for people adopting things like roof and foundations tiedowns that drastically improve the safety and performance of their dwelling in a design event of a given size.

 

I'm not anti-regulation, but it needs to be evidence based and sensible for the cost both in terms of dollars and restrictions on the free choice of the businesss or individuals it impacts. Especially in places like the EPA it has gone crazy overboard in some key areas. Here's to hoping for some reform. I'd settle for abolishing the entire department federally since there is so much duplication state by state in resources and waste management anyway, but that would take more spine than I think this administration has.

There is only so much that construction can do and the costs of the safest types of construction are so expensive that it isn't something that people are always willing to do.

 

Buildings in my hometown are actually required to have roofs and foundations secured. It isn't enough where I am from. After an event they do go over every single issue regarding construction and there are extensive damage reports regarding them. Everyone in my homestate knows what they are and what happens when that isn't done.

 

It is not inexpensive, it is expensive.

 

I do know what, "act of God" destruction looks like because I have seen it with my own eyes, more than once, and it isn't something that we should learn to tolerate but work to prevent.

 

There are few places in the world that focus and research more on building safety and construction than the exact bulls-eye of my hometown.

Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  It proves the point.

 

It's quite simple:  The overall greenhouse effect is NOT changing even though CO2 concentration is increasing rapidly.

 

 

 

That's not what the link you shared said. It said the greenhouse effect WAS rising, just more slowly recently than in some previous years. And part of that was heating of the ocean rather than the atmosphere, which is possibly just as bad. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. TranquilMind, that is possibly the nicest thing you've ever said. *sniff*

 

2. Reg, you're currently example A of the value of not allowing garbage to flood the media. Others have repeatedly shown that you don't understand the articles you're linking to - which means you're not in a position to understand what is reliable evidence and what is not.

 

3. Arctic Mama, I'm going to direct you to this link by Fact Check.

What is the point on the fact check? It's actually proving my point about the dishonest argument using polar bears as a demonstration of global warming. Not only are the animals excellent swimmers, population problems the university has observed in some enclaves in this state also affected the wolf population - a paucity of prey in several subsets due to the natural rise and fall of *those* populations. More predators = less prey. More predators die off = a prey boom in the next two to three seasons. We have seen increases in some glaciers as others subside, some low temp records, some high, some median. If ever there needed to be a demonstration of correlation not equaling causation, the most popular and enduring global warming and cooling claims are prime fodder, especially as they relate to this state.

 

I don't have the time or care to go into it further, but plant me firmly in the skeptical side of man made climate change to the level it is usually claimed. I'll go far enough to say man has some impact, and it's difficult to measure accurately. I also concede that as a fellow citizen of this planet I am a big fan of stewardship of resources for the flourishing of humanity - meaning a balance of investment and conservation. The biggest offenders in terms of pollution and deleterious farming, industrial, and mining practices are developing countries, not the US, most of Europe, and everyone else who tends to target these issues. On the cost/benefit curve of regulatory oversight we are firmly on the waning benefit side at this juncture, where arguably more damage is being done to productivity and economy than resources are being demonstrably better managed.

 

You're welcome to disagree vociferously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, anyone saying "it's our fault" means it collectively.  Unless this person lives off the grid in a sod house or something, it includes the speaker.

 

It isn't something to be taken personally.

 

For goodness sakes, we're all here using the internet, which takes a ton of resources to power, tapping on our computers made of petrolueum, and poisionous and rare metals.  We're all part of the consumer machine, and if we can't face that kind of criticism of our basic lifestyles and thinking and what we've inherited, we are doomed in so many ways other than just in terms of the environment. 

 

We all need to say "we confess our manifold sins and wickedness which we from time to time most grievously have committed by thought, word, and deed" - time to time meaning - all the bleeding time, constantly.  And take that sense of the missed mark around with us in all we do.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not correct. I am not sure where you are getting your science but it is wrong.

 

No, the science is exactly correct.  Here is an article with a link to the measurements.

 

The sun is the only source of heat for the oceans with one exception:  in a few parts of the world like parts of Antarctica, there are also non-trivial sources of heat from geothermal sources below.  When the sun shines on the ocean from directly above, it heats the ocean water directly through longwave radiation which has a significant skin depth, thus allowing it to penetrate the water.  As mentioned, this effect is modulated by cloud cover.

 

Simply put, there is nothing scary about a 0.0005K reduction at the top 1 micron of the surface of the ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only so much that construction can do and the costs of the safest types of construction are so expensive that it isn't something that people are always willing to do.

 

Buildings in my hometown are actually required to have roofs and foundations secured. It isn't enough where I am from. After an event they do go over every single issue regarding construction and there are extensive damage reports regarding them. Everyone in my homestate knows what they are and what happens when that isn't done.

 

It is not inexpensive, it is expensive.

 

I do know what, "act of God" destruction looks like because I have seen it with my own eyes, more than once, and it isn't something that we should learn to tolerate but work to prevent.

 

There are few places in the world that focus and research more on building safety and construction than the exact bulls-eye of my hometown.

Even in timber/stick frame/panelized construction the performance can be vastly improved through certain choices. We would like to push minimum code higher and reiterate to consumers that code minimum also means 'the least safe. Holding you can legally construct' which seems to escape many people.

 

Our new home is also going to be an ICF one, with seismic governing in terms of force but it will also be able to sustain winds exceeding the high mark for our area. And yes it is slightly more expensive than building code minimum for this area - about 15%. For the increased safety and performance it is worth it to us, but I'd love to see insurance companies offering breaks on rates for developments and dwellings that add safety through materials and design choices. Financial incentives are the only way to get wider adoption. It's an ongoing lobbying effort but there are engineers, materials scientists, numerous industry manufacturers, and code boards with their corresponding supporting labs and researchers all working to help in this regard. Here's to hoping more and more lives can be saved through getting people the intersection of safe and affordable housing options and full disclosure on the properties they are buying, with rigorous inspection and enforcement of existing code standards being step 1 (that unfortunately many municipalities have failed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The temperature of the oceans has virtually nothing to do with CO2.  CO2 in the atmosphere CANNOT heat the ocean, period.  Heat in the ocean ONLY flows from the ocean to the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Dude, the article YOU cited, as your evidence, doesn't say that. It in fact gives, as one of the hypothesis for the slowdown in temperature rise (which, FYI, means the RATE of temperature rise has decreased, NOT that we aren't continuing to see a rise), as:

 

" increasing heat uptake in global deep oceans27,28,29,30,31. This extra heat, which originates from a positive radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), is reserved in the deep oceans instead of warming the EarthĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s skin32,33,34,35,36."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Reg, you're currently example A of the value of not allowing garbage to flood the media. Others have repeatedly shown that you don't understand the articles you're linking to - which means you're not in a position to understand what is reliable evidence and what is not.

 

I have provided direct support for each statement that I have made.  Not a single one has been refuted by scientific measurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point on the fact check? It's actually proving my point about the dishonest argument using polar bears as a demonstration of global warming. Not only are the animals excellent swimmers, population problems the university has observed in some enclaves in this state also affected the wolf population - a paucity of prey in several subsets due to the natural rise and fall of *those* populations. More predators = less prey. More predators die off = a prey boom in the next two to three seasons. We have seen increases in some glaciers as others subside, some low temp records, some high, some median. If ever there needed to be a demonstration of correlation not equaling causation, the most popular and enduring global warming and cooling claims are prime fodder, especially as they relate to this state.

 

I don't have the time or care to go into it further, but plant me firmly in the skeptical side of man made climate change to the level it is usually claimed. I'll go far enough to say man has some impact, and it's difficult to measure accurately. I also concede that as a fellow citizen of this planet I am a big fan of stewardship of resources for the flourishing of humanity - meaning a balance of investment and conservation. The biggest offenders in terms of pollution and deleterious farming, industrial, and mining practices are developing countries, not the US, most of Europe, and everyone else who tends to target these issues. On the cost/benefit curve of regulatory oversight we are firmly on the waning benefit side at this juncture, where arguably more damage is being done to productivity and economy than resources are being demonstrably better managed.

 

You're welcome to disagree vociferously.

Polar bears are excellent swimmers but they are having to swim longer and further in search of sea ice. They are swimming very long distances without rest and some are dying because they drown from exhaustion. Grown polar bears can survive but cubs cannot.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/05/03/melting-sea-ice-is-forcing-polar-bears-to-take-epic-swims-you-asked-for-ways-to-help/?utm_term=.549d5c17d408

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/04/21/melting-arctic-ice-is-forcing-polar-bears-to-swim-for-more-than-a-week-without-rest/?postshare=881462204668492&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.6d3ad70eb153

 

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arctic Mama, I have to run. If other people answer you, I won't make my own long reply. Otherwise, I'll try to get to you when I get home. I just don't want you thinking you had the last word :P

You're welcome to disagree with me. Have fun. I've said my peace and will continue to happy dance over in my corner. I'd say 90% of the current cabinet picks are just fantastic and I'm thrilled. It won't help some of our immediate problems on a state level and the fight continues, but there is not uniformity of response on these issues, nor should there be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh brother. Yeah, no. Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise, but no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have provided direct support for each statement that I have made.  Not a single one has been refuted by scientific measurements.

 

People are telling you that the support you are giving doesn't say what you think.  So you haven't provided anything.

 

It is just wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, the article YOU cited, as your evidence, doesn't say that. It in fact gives, as one of the hypothesis for the slowdown in temperature rise (which, FYI, means the RATE of temperature rise has decreased, NOT that we aren't continuing to see a rise), as:

 

" increasing heat uptake in global deep oceans27,28,29,30,31. This extra heat, which originates from a positive radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), is reserved in the deep oceans instead of warming the EarthĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s skin32,33,34,35,36."

 

You missed this part:

 

It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established.
Translation:  We cannot measure the impact of CO2 on the reduction of cooling of the ocean.  We can BARELY measure it for the effect of clouds, but we managed.

 

To get the REAL story from this website, you have to be able to understand the impact of the data in the graph.  The slope of the line in the graph is approximately 0.1 K for every 100 W/m^2.  The greenhouse effect from a doubling of CO2 (no feedbacks) is estimated to be just above 1 W/m^2.  That means a doubling of CO2 gives you only 0.001K of surface skin effect.  But we are far from a doubling, so the entire effect on ocean skin surface today due to CO2 is only 0.0005K.

 

But in reality it is even lower than that in most places over the ocean, since the evaporation causes the atmosphere just above the surface to be saturated with water vapor.  In those cases, CO2 will have virtually zero effect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree more. It boggles my mind how often if I did something there's hellfire jail time, but a corporation? Oh well. That's different. Same goes for schools getting away with stuff that parents for sure wouldn't.

 

The only ways to punish a corporation are fines, and dissolution, which is the corporation equivalent of the death penalty.

 

Fines for corporations should be tied both to what is done, and to the financial worth of the entity doing it. That way they could be made large enough to actually have teeth for big transnationals, without unfairly penalizing small business or individual actors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get the REAL story from this website, you have to be able to understand the impact of the data in the graph.  The slope of the line in the graph is approximately 0.1 K for every 100 W/m^2.  The greenhouse effect from a doubling of CO2 (no feedbacks) is estimated to be just above 1 W/m^2.  That means a doubling of CO2 gives you only 0.001K of surface skin effect.  But we are far from a doubling, so the entire effect on ocean skin surface today due to CO2 is only 0.0005K.

 

But in reality it is even lower than that in most places over the ocean, since the evaporation causes the atmosphere just above the surface to be saturated with water vapor.  In those cases, CO2 will have virtually zero effect.

 

Let me put this another way for those who still don't get it:  At nighttime, a 100% change in cloud cover provides a 100 W/m^2 change in the loss of heat from the ocean.  Since CO2 accounts for 0.5W/m^2, that means a change in global cloud cover is 200X as powerful, so a 0.5% decrease in cloud cover AT NIGHT will swamp out the entire effect of CO2.

 

During the daytime, the numbers are much more dramatic:  A 0.05% change in cloud cover is equivalent to the total effect of CO2.  (And the sunlight ACTUALLY heats the water.  So how much does global cloud cover change anyway?  Here you go (Wow!  3 percent!):

 

CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, which is more apt to have accounted for the warming during the 1990s?

 

1)  The 10 W/m^2 increase of direct sunlight hitting the surface of the Earth due to the reduction of clouds during that period.  This additional sunlight can heat BOTH the surface AND the water.

2)  The 0.3 W/m^2 increase in infrared from CO2 (total increase since whenever).

 

(Notice also that global temperature stopped going up when cloud cover stopped going down.)

 

The effect of the clouds on sunlight is about 30X that of CO2 during that period, so I'll say nearly ALL of the warming during that period was due to the additional sunlight.

 

Again, CO2 is a "don't care" when it comes to the temperature of the Earth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome to disagree with me. Have fun. I've said my peace and will continue to happy dance over in my corner. I'd say 90% of the current cabinet picks are just fantastic and I'm thrilled. It won't help some of our immediate problems on a state level and the fight continues, but there is not uniformity of response on these issues, nor should there be.

 

Careful what you wish for!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...