Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

RegGuheert

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

Recommended Posts

:confused1:  FACTS about climate change are off-topic for this thread?

 

Funny, no one claimed that facts about pizzagate were off-topic for this thread...

 

No, it is exactly on topic.  Read this post in which I provided pertinent facts about climate change and showed how Eric Schmidt of Google believes those who state the obvious implications of those facts are "lying."

 

What has happened since I started providing facts in this thread is that some of those who had been touting "facts," "facts," "facts" have not been able to respond with facts and instead have responded with fallacious arguments such as your appeal to emotion.

 

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

This also comes back around to news/fake news. One journalist to read in this vein is Jane Mayer. I look forward to reading her latest book.

Edited by Jen in NY
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Especially when I'm still doped up from a unisom sleeping pill. 

 

But for grins, here is the EPA chart showing the forced heating over the last time period, for greenhouse effect. And sure does look like it went up over the last 25 years. But I'm not a scientist,s o it would take me a while to dig in and search through the data. In the meantime, I'm willing to say it's not a hoax of the Chinese. 

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

Edited by ktgrok
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Read the papers.  Based on the science, any projection of sea level rise beyond 1 meter per century is "sheer nonsense".  There is no acceleration in sea-level rise.

 

 

 

If you don't believe me, simply go to this global map of tidal gauges and click on the arrow closest to where you live.  Then click the link which says "Linear Trend" and it will show you all of the recorded sea-level data for that station.  I have clicked around on many of these in the past and only one or two showed any sign of acceleration.  IIRC, those were in Hawaii.

 

 

Fortunately, hurricanes and tornadoes are on their way down in this country.

 

The site you linked yourself, the National Ocean Service,  says that sea level is rising at an increasing rate.  Maybe you aren't understanding their products properly.  It says:

 

"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because for the purpose of discussing what to do about fake news, I figured it was better that we all focus on stories we agree are fake..

 

Reread the thread title and thread starter if you want to understand the focus of this thread.

 

I have demonstrated that one of the principals at Google has stated as "truth" something that is extremely questionable and at the same time has claimed that those opposing his view are "lying".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site you linked yourself, the National Ocean Service,  says that sea level is rising at an increasing rate.  Maybe you aren't understanding their products properly.  It says:

 

"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "

 

Where do you live?  Also, can you please provide a link for the quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Never mind: this thread moves too fast for me...

Edited by beckyjo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you live?  Also, can you please provide a link for the quote?

 

Where I live isn't relevent.  THe NOS is talking about ocean levels on a worldwide basis.

 

Here is the page where they adress sea level rise.

 

And this is the point - they provided the data map which led you to believe it didn't exist.  Yet, based on the same kinds of data sets, they say it does.  This suggests you just aren't knowledgable enough to be able to understand these kinds of data when you are looking through studies and posting all these things to prove your point.

 

In any case - I think this really is outside the scope of the thread - at best you can say you think this is controversial and shouldn't count as "fact" for searches like used on google, it is just too controversial.  What I would say is there are plenty of people and websites that are clearly presenting false information, or improperly understood information, and they will still appear in searches if you look for them specifically.

Edited by Bluegoat
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for grins, here is the EPA chart showing the forced heating over the last time period, for greenhouse effect. And sure does look like it went up over the last 25 years. But I'm not a scientist,s o it would take me a while to dig in and search through the data. In the meantime, I'm willing to say it's not a hoax of the Chinese. 

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

 

That's the theory.

 

Then someone MEASURED the GLOBAL greenhouse effect over that period.  IT DID NOT INCREASE.

 

But, guess what?  Most people do not know about this measurement.  Why?  It's not because it was published in an obscure journal, either.  It's because the press chooses to ONLY publish the alarming results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never watch TV news, I absolutely despise the sound bite nature of most of it. We don't own a TV, but I can't even bear to watch it in waiting rooms or at airports.

This exactly. Except we do own a TV. We use it to watch DVDs, the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the debates.

 

I have left waiting rooms and told the receptions I'll be out in the hall -- call for me there when my turn comes. I just can't stand to listen to the blathering of the 24 hour news channels, which is where the doctors usually have set the dial. Now at my dentist, at least, the TVs are tuned to Food Network or one of those home repair/decorating channels.

Edited by Serenade
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This exactly. Except we do own a TV. We use it to watch DVDs, the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the debates.

 

I have left waiting rooms and told the receptions I'll be out in the hall -- call for me there when my turn comes. I just can't stand to listen to the blathering of the 24 hour news channels, which is where the doctors usually have set the dial. Now at my dentist, at least, the TVs are tuned to Food Network or one of those home repair/decorating channels.

 

When I was in the army, I worked in an office for a while where CNN was on the ofice tv, right where I worked, all the time. 

 

It drove me nuts.

 

Even CBC or BBC would have been a little better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the theory.

 

Then someone MEASURED the GLOBAL greenhouse effect over that period.  IT DID NOT INCREASE.

 

 

 

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by "greenhouse effect". Do you mean the concentration of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperature during that period, or something different?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I live isn't relevent.  THe NOS is talking about ocean levels on a worldwide basis.

 

Here is the page where they adress sea level rise.

 

And this is the point - they provided the data map which led you to believe it didn't exist.  Yet, based on the same kinds of data sets, they say it does.  This suggests you just aren't knowledgable enough to be able to understand these kinds of data when you are looking through studies and posting all these things to prove your point.

 

In any case - I think this really is outside the scope of the thread - at best you can say you think this is controversial and shouldn't count as "fact" for searches like used on google, it is just too controversial.  What I would say is there are plenty of people and websites that are clearly presenting false information, or improperly understood information, and they will still appear in searches if you look for them specifically.

 

From your link:

 

 

Analysis of a global network of tide gauge records shows that sea level has been rising at the rate of about 0.6 inches per decade since 1900.

 

That's only 6 inches per century.

 

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

 

I'm seeing sea level rise projections of way more than 2 inches - more like 2 meters.

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI Diane Rehm's show today is about Fake News and its proliferation. You can stream a rebroadcast later today, usually sometime after noon.

It's interesting.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the pp's point about climate change is not that the theory of climate change is fake news, but that stories that dispute it are treated as fake news.  The fact is that it is still under debate among people knowledgeable enough and ethical enough to discuss it objectively.

 

As for "so many scientists independently reaching the same conclusion," there is not really that much independence in climate change studies.  They have to collaborate, because the cost of gathering the pertinent information is large.  Therefore they are all limited by the quality and integrity of whatever data they are sharing.  Also, the idea that there is no bias in science is ... well, a nice idea ....

 

But even assuming the highest integrity and ability among the scientists, there is still bias in what gets reported.  And again, there are significant financial and power interests in managing the climate change message.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg, I just clicked, after more coffee, on your first link to disprove the greenhouse effect. First, it was published in a major magazine, so hardly being suppressed. Second, it doesn't say that greenhouse effect isn't increasing, just that the rate of increase is slowing down, due NOT to anything to do with carbon, but due to increased la nina weather patterns, which change where on the planet warming is seen. And that since WHERE has a huge effect on how much the global temperature is raised, this has slowed down the increase .But that the increase is still happening. It's slowed down because of, among other things, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, etc. 

 

That doesn't disprove climate change caused by carbon, methane, etc. And now I need a freaking nap. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in the army, I worked in an office for a while where CNN was on the ofice tv, right where I worked, all the time. 

 

It drove me nuts.

 

Even CBC or BBC would have been a little better.

 

My mom had major surgery and we all came into her hospital room afterwards, hoping for a sign that she got through the surgery all right.  She woke up and muttered, "change that channel [the TV was tuned to CNN].  $#&$%."  At that point we knew she had come through with all her faculties, LOL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was never about "who".  It was only about "for what purpose".

 

Same reasoning that would allow one to decline baked goods with inappropriate images or slogans. 

 

 

A baker plays exactly ZERO role in what is done with the cake after it is purchased and delivered. I can buy a wedding cake and serve it at a wedding, or use it for a food fight, or throw it in the dumpster immediately if I want. It's none of the baker's business once the cake belongs to me.

 

Declining to bake a cake with an inappropriate image or slogan is the baker's right because the decoration on the cake is a form of speech, and as the person creating it, the baker has that right. NO ONE has ever suggested they don't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well, here we go again. Allow me to sum up the next 20 pages on this topic:

 

One Side - "We're right and here's the same three tired old arguments to prove it!"

The other side - "No, you're wrong, and our vastly superior arguments prove it!"

First Side - "Nuh-uh!"

Second Side - "Uh-huh! Also, you smell!"

First Side - "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

 

Moderators: Okay, let's lock this thread because you can't play nicely.

 

There, now that I've neatly summed up The Cake Wars, maybe we can skip this round. It is soooooo boring, guys. Can we please not go there for a change? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

 

Sometimes I just can't help myself. It's CAKE.  :drool5:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg, I just clicked, after more coffee, on your first link to disprove the greenhouse effect. First, it was published in a major magazine, so hardly being suppressed. Second, it doesn't say that greenhouse effect isn't increasing, just that the rate of increase is slowing down, due NOT to anything to do with carbon, but due to increased la nina weather patterns, which change where on the planet warming is seen. And that since WHERE has a huge effect on how much the global temperature is raised, this has slowed down the increase .But that the increase is still happening. It's slowed down because of, among other things, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, etc. 

 

That doesn't disprove climate change caused by carbon, methane, etc. And now I need a freaking nap. 

 

De-bunking fake-news is exhausting.

 

Bill

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

De-bunking fake-news is exhausting.

 

Bill

 

Except this time the news article was real, it just didn't say what he said it said. A sentence that is confusing my addled brain. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by "greenhouse effect". Do you mean the concentration of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperature during that period, or something different?

 

Sure.  The Earth attains an equilibrium temperature at some temperature at which the amount of infrared radiation leaving the Earth exactly matches the amount of longwave and shortwave radiation that are incident on the Earth (primarily from the Sun).  This temperature would be achieved only after a long time (many say more than 100 years).

 

Greenhouse gases and clouds act like a blanket and capture some of the infrared radiation that would normally go directly out to space.  That causes the greenhouse molecules to heat up.  The will either share that heat by warming other molecules in the atmosphere or by reradiating in some random direction.  When they reradiate, not all will be going in the original direction of what they received, so the tend to reduce the overall amount of heat lost from the Earth.  In other words, Greenhouse gases act a bit like a blanket in keeping your body from losing heat so quickly.

 

Water vapor is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, accounting for about 90% of the greenhouse effect.  Carbon dioxide is a far second at around 4%, IIRC.

 

BTW, clouds have a much more significant effect on the temperature of the Earth than any greenhouse gases by reflecting some of the incident sunlight.  A 1% change in global cloud cover has about 50X the impact on the energy budget for Earth than a doubling of CO2 theoretically does.  And the global cloud cover has been measured to move by 5 or 6% over decadal time frames.  (It is not constant.)

 

The measurement of the global greenhouse effect is done by measuring the total radiation out to space and the total radiation incident on the Earth and calculating the net flow of energy.  Typically, this number is reported in W/m^2.

 

ETA:

The measurement I linked previously measured ONLY the effects at infrared frequencies where water vapor and CO2 are dominant[/url].

/ETA:

 

FWIW, when scientific calculations have been published on the greenhouse effect, I have seen numbers such as 0.6 W/m^2.  What is interesting is that the error bars were something like + or - 14 W/m^2!!

Edited by RegGuheert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except this time the news article was real, it just didn't say what he said it said. A sentence that is confusing my addled brain. 

 

I wasn't talking about the article ;)

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fair point. Things haven't gotten better.

 

Every time Obama opens his mouth on clean energy and climate Big Oil freaks out and starts filing lawsuits. They fought tooth and nail against even injection drilling be limited in any way even though it is KNOWN it is causing earth quakes.

 

As long as "money is speech," and "corporations are people," nothing will ever change.

 

Trump tapped one of the worst people imaginable for the EPA. It isn't going to get better, it will get worse.

 

I was too tired last night and didn't finish my thought on this article.

 

This piece was written outside of the US and is critical of one aspect of our government/administration.  The issue is one that has global impact.

 

The article should be a talking point in the US and so far, our mainstream media has not picked up on it yet.  My optimistic reason for the delay is that it may take time and resources for US media to respond in a thoughtful and factual manner.  My cynical self wonders if it's possible that this may not fit into my favorite US sources' political narrative  that they feel is important to present at this point in time.

Edited by swimmermom3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was too tired last night and didn't finish my thought on this article.

 

This piece was written outside of the US and is critical of one aspect of our government/administration.  The issue is one that has global impact.

 

The article should be a talking point in the US and so far, our mainstream media has not picked up on it yet.  My optimistic reason for the delay is that it may take time and resources for US media to respond in a thoughtful and factual manner.  My cynical self wonders if it's possible that this may not fit into my favorite US sources' political narrative  that they feel is important to present at this point in time.

 

The left-leaning mainstream sources would not want to sully their president's image.

 

The right-leaning sources would not want to give too much importance to environmental issues.

 

I am going to check the facebook page of a very radical left-left-left person I know.  Maybe the article found its way onto her fb page.  :)  ETA:  nope, not yet anyway.

Edited by SKL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Water vapor is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, accounting for about 90% of the greenhouse effect.  Carbon dioxide is a far second at around 4%, IIRC.

 

BTW, clouds have a much more significant effect on the temperature of the Earth than any greenhouse gases by reflecting some of the incident sunlight.  A 1% change in global cloud cover has about 50X the impact on the energy budget for Earth than a doubling of CO2 theoretically does.  And the global cloud cover has been measured to move by 5 or 6% over decadal time frames.  (It is not constant.)

 

The measurement of the global greenhouse effect is done by measuring the total radiation out to space and the total radiation incident on the Earth and calculating the net flow of energy.  Typically, this number is reported in W/m^2.

 

FWIW, when scientific calculations have been published on the greenhouse effect, I have seen numbers such as 0.6 W/m^2.  What is interesting is that the error bars were something like + or - 14 W/m^2!!

 

Ok, wasn't looking for what the greenhouse effect is, but which measurement you were talking about. So thanks. 

 

Did you read the part where the article said that the effect is in fact still increasing over the time period you talked about, just at a slower rate, due to several factors, including dryer conditions/less clouds, volcanos, and in bad news, warming of the oceans, which are absorbing some of that heat rather than it being radiated back out? 

 

None of that sounds like "hey, greenhouse effect isn't a problem". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can we give the wedding baker and the hobby lobby a nice little double funeral and bury the discussion right here? Please?

 

Just responding to someone's inaccurate analogy about this topic.  I didn't bring it up, and also mentioned that people would prefer not to discuss it in this thread and we could take it elsewhere. That's it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got all my lawmakers on speed dial - local, state, national. My plan is to be on top of them like white brown on rice.

 

 

I live on a coastline. I kinda like my city. I don't want it to flood again.

 

Heh heh.  That is the most believable thing I have read all day.

 

I think I would like you, even though we agree on almost nothing. 

 

;)

Edited by TranquilMind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

This also comes back around to news/fake news. One journalist to read in this vein is Jane Mayer. I look forward to reading her latest book.

 

I had forgotten about Jane Mayer. Thanks so much. Her work is great!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, wasn't looking for what the greenhouse effect is, but which measurement you were talking about. So thanks. 

 

Did you read the part where the article said that the effect is in fact still increasing over the time period you talked about, just at a slower rate, due to several factors, including dryer conditions/less clouds, volcanos, and in bad news, warming of the oceans, which are absorbing some of that heat rather than it being radiated back out? 

 

None of that sounds like "hey, greenhouse effect isn't a problem". 

 

Yes.  But I know of no credible sources which considers the effects of CO2 to be significant in and of themselves.  What is required for there to be a problem is for CO2 to influence water vapor in a way which increases the overall heating effect by affecting other molecules, specifically water vapor.  That is what has been put forth, but there is significant evidence that increasing water vapor COOLS the Earth rather than warms it, for a large variety of reasons.

 

On top of that, as you mentioned, there are clouds.  They ABSOLUTELY dominate the energy flow on Earth. They are the great unknown.  Little is known about the formation of clouds.  Science is learning, but we are at the very beginning of understanding.

 

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

 

HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Judith Curry believes that the impact of CO2 on temperature is significantly lower than the popular estimate and that very little warming is to be expected.  She has published papers to this effect.  She believes that there is little to fear from the release of CO2.

 

Here is a link to responses she made to congressmen in 2015.  Her responses there are pretty clear:

 

 

Those who want to know what Dr. Judith Curry believes should read her blog and her published works.

 

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.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 8

Share this post


Link to post
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 8

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 16

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...