It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paris climate Agreement and the 1.5 degree thing.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

in my area, you would have to work at separating trash, to the point of traveling to different places to take different trash, as opposed to just going to the dump or paying the trash man. Having a better option for those "less apt to do stuff" is paramount to getting things to change. There might be a business opportunity in there somewhere......




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


People like to use the argument that we cant switch over because we can't do major construction, fly, move cargo etc... without diesel, this is true, we can't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't switch everywhere else.

Absolutely agreed!

I don't need a carbon dioxide boogeyman to dislike fossil fuels. They are the cause of enough resource wars to warrant replacing them alone. I have already switched my house and shop to 100% LED, use fans instead of air conditioning, and use as much solar heat as possible in the winter. That's just good common sense.

My only gripe with getting rid of fossil fuels is that we have to have a reliable replacement first. Despite the pie-in-the-sky reports, present attempts have yet to show reliability, especially in non-urban areas.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   


A new study by researchers from Syracuse and Yale universities provides a much clearer picture of the Earth’s temperature approximately 50 million years ago when CO2 concentrations were higher than today. The results may shed light on what to expect in the future if CO2 levels keep rising.





"The early Eocene Epoch (50 million years ago) was about as warm as the Earth has been over the past 65 million years, since the extinction of the dinosaurs," Ivany says. "There were crocodiles above the Arctic Circle and palm trees in Alaska.

www.astrobio.net...

This is an interesting epoch when discussing climate change. First, scientists cannot figure out how this climate existed, they call it the equable climate problem. We are supposed to take for granted, that what scientists are telling us on future predictions of global climate, yet they cannot even understand past eras.

I honestly believe that increased co2 levels is beneficial, and the Eocene is a prime example, when co2 levels were much higher. The issues with environment that should be focused on is water quality, and keeping toxic wastes from getting into the environment.

I'm not going to take anyone seriously who claims 3 degree increase in global temperatures will end all life on Earth. Earth had life thriving with global temperatures over 10 degrees warmer on average for millions of years.



During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.)

www.climate.gov...

At this point in time, the global warming issue is a non-issue, or at the least it's not a priority.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

We did the same with LEDs and downsizing. once I can afford to do some solar, we will. But between all you have done and what I hope to do, I'm afraid it's just not quite enough to reverse this trend. True Brit said it best that those who squawk the loudest about this, need to be the ones making the changes themselves.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I love LED lighting. I refused to use CFLs for several reasons: they dim with time, they contain mercury and are fragile, and the ballasts put off HF EM fields which can get costly in an electronic lab. But LEDs are not fragile, do not dim with time, and put off good light with a lifespan longer than CFLs and use a little less power to boot.

The solar heating I use is simply curtains over east-facing windows. I have a cheap thermometer mounted in direct sunlight. If I wake up on a cold morning, I check that thermometer. It gives me an idea of not just how cold it is, but also how strong the sun is, if it's reading 70-80 degrees, I just open the curtains and cover up for an hour instead of running a heater. If it's showing 40 degrees, time to burn some fossil fuels.

It never shows the actual temperature... but I don't want it to. I want a combo reading. It's like Jack Sparrow's compass...never points to North, but points to what he wants most at that moment. More useful than a 'working' model.

I have solar cells in my shop; I use them for low-power remote applications. They're awesome for that! But for main power, I just don't see solar photovoltaics doing the job in the foreseeable future.

I won't condemn others for using them... I just prefer to have plentiful power myself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kali74

I get that part, and I understand it, but to think that something this important was left to people who would put the temperature sensors in the middle of a blacktop parking lot, kind of gives the impression they are either really, really dumb, or really really dishonest, and I don't really see a third option there.


It is still a valid test. they will test from year to year. if the blacktop monitor shows whatever, 110 degrees one year average, then the following year its 115 degrees, they dont flip out that its 115, they will simply note there is a 5 degree increase from the previous year.

They could put it in a solar oven and it would still be fine if they compare like to like over years.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I understand the alienation entirely.

Let me explain something, if I may.

Some years back, our local council and many others up and down our nation, decided that we should have separate garbage collection for recyclables, meaning you would have different coloured trash bags, for different types of trash. Some councils elected to have more bag types than others, the idea being that if the trash was sorted by the homeowner, it saved money at the other end. So, you would have a bag for textiles, a bag for paper, a bag for food waste, and a bag for metals, tin cans and whatnot.

The problem with this method, is that, in my area certainly, for the vast majority of the time these schemes were running, only 12% of the trash we put into a recycling bag, ever made it anywhere other than landfill, despite the fact that our costs went up, to cover the different bags, and allegedly the cost of processing the recycling. We paid those costs, but got nearly no benefit in terms of how our trash was dealt with.

Now, an awful lot of people, understandably, are against the recycling idea, because they have been burned by it. My argument, however, is that it is not our job to sort the trash. The idea that there are some things which by definition cannot be reused, is frankly idiotic. Plastics are plastics. There is no way you can tell me, with a straight face, that plastics cannot be returned to a raw state by some means, and reprocessed into new items or materials. It makes no actual sense. Its like these packages which say "Not currently recycled" are laughing at us, because the only reason that they are not recycled, is because our government are content to steal from us, rather than do the work we pay them to get done. EVERYTHING ought to be recycled. Everything on a trash heap today, bar the biological material, should be retrieved, cleaned, sifted and sorted, reprocessed and turned into once more useful materials, and this should be happening at the prices we pay for trash management NOW, not extortionate increases in waste management costs across the board. These are unnecessary.

There are companies in my country who want better access to our trash, so that they can create recycled materials for building homes and other premises out of. I am all for that, but our government get in their way constantly.

There are things I KNOW my country could be doing, with the resources we already give to the government, to do a much better job of dealing with something as simple as waste management, which are not happening for reasons which have nothing to do with the behaviour or preferences of the people themselves, but have everything to do with maintaining a bottom line for some waste management firm, with a thirty year contract to supply services.

The business as usual approach is not acceptable, it simply cannot be justified, but it is being justified, by in my opinion, the deliberate activity on the part of government, which makes recycling seem hundreds of times more complicated, expensive and annoying for the people, than it ever has to be.

This is just one example of the ways in which governments, rather than knowing their role and performing it perfectly and in honesty, decide to allow profiteers to steer the people away from good ideas and better behaviours, like renewables, like recycling. I think you and I are actually on the same page here, largely speaking. I just do not think that I would wish my government or anyone elses, to get away with endangering the future of the species as they are now, by what amounts to some very dodgy and actually quite transparent psyops and propaganda techniques. I want a cleaner country, I want better quality air, less carbon waste, a climate that does not threaten my future and that of my countrymen. How about you?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

except when that temperature is averaged in, thus the need for the "tweaking".



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: SaturnFX

except when that temperature is averaged in, thus the need for the "tweaking".

It still doesn't matter as it would average in equally.
Also, it is valid due to this not being a garden planet anymore. plenty of concrete and asphalt temperatures that need to be accounted for...sticking everything in a nice shady forest isn't representing what is going on in the world. need a good mix of city and country temperatures for an accurate measurement of longitudal temperature variations, but ultimately, they are looking at the change year to year, not the sitting temperature of any place for one single year. its a comparison of change.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

If you are right, then when they fudge the number, there must really be something underhanded going on. (it can't be both)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


The problem with this method, is that, in my area certainly, for the vast majority of the time these schemes were running, only 12% of the trash we put into a recycling bag, ever made it anywhere other than landfill, despite the fact that our costs went up, to cover the different bags, and allegedly the cost of processing the recycling. We paid those costs, but got nearly no benefit in terms of how our trash was dealt with.

That is, unfortunately, an all-too-common experience. It is also one of the reasons I rail against Global Warming schemes so profusely. From a scientific standpoint, there are apparent changes which need to be verified and understood... knowledge is always a good thing. But from a political standpoint, the 'cure' touted is always regulation and taxation of energy... and I do not trust the government to create regulations or enact taxation in a productive manner, at all. I would come closer to trusting a rattlesnake to not bite.


My argument, however, is that it is not our job to sort the trash. The idea that there are some things which by definition cannot be reused, is frankly idiotic. Plastics are plastics. There is no way you can tell me, with a straight face, that plastics cannot be returned to a raw state by some means, and reprocessed into new items or materials.

Yes, it is theoretically possible to return every item to its original state, but it can be far from practical. It is also possible to recycle my urine into Mountain Dew, but I don't expect that to be practical (or desired, lol) in the foreseeable future. In the case of plastics, no, plastic is not plastic is not plastic. The term 'plastic' is a catch-all. There is polycarbonate, polypropylene, polystyrene, nylon, Teflon, poly-vinyl-chloride, polyethylene, and a few hundred different types. Some are flexible; others are strong. Some are machinable; others are brittle. Some are heat-tolerant; others are easily meltable. Mix them together in known quantities and you will get a useless mishmash of unknown properties.

And this again applies back to Global Warming. To an untrained eye, your testament of "plastics are plastics" sounds realistic, because most people are not familiar with the various types. They just call it all 'plastic,' but to those who work with plastics the term is meaningless. To the untrained eye, all the climate models and their predictions look like gloom and doom on the horizon, but in reality they are failed experiments used to advance understanding and not reliable.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kali74

I get that part, and I understand it, but to think that something this important was left to people who would put the temperature sensors in the middle of a blacktop parking lot, kind of gives the impression they are either really, really dumb, or really really dishonest, and I don't really see a third option there.


Dumb or dishonest - a bit of both I think.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
I don’t think it’s a matter of too much carbon in the atmosphere and plants start to die, plants love CO2. The problem is too much carbon and the global temperature averages rise and we see increases of drought in already arid locations. The problem is lack of water.

Water covers 70% of our planet, and it is easy to think that it will always be plentiful. However, freshwater—the stuff we drink, bathe in, irrigate our farm fields with—is incredibly rare. Only 3% of the world’s water is fresh water, and two-thirds of that is tucked away in frozen glaciers or otherwise unavailable for our use.
WolrdWildLife.org

California has had a problem with drought and even though is seems to be over, the problem of lack of water still exist.

After years of history drought levels and a steady recovery in 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown officially stated Friday that California's drought is over. For now at least.
LATimes


California’s agriculture sector has exceeded expectations during the most severe drought in recorded history at the cost of massive but unsustainable groundwater pumping. Continued groundwater overdraft, while reducing the economic impacts of the drought for the agricultural sector now, has shifted the burden to others, including current and future generations forced to dig deeper wells, find alternative drinking water sources, and repair infrastructure damaged by subsidence
pacinst.org

Who cares about California, right?

California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots (and the list goes on and on).
slate.com

This is but one example in one state in one country, how is the rest of the world doing? The problem of lack of water exists and global warming threatens to make this much worse. Don’t worry about warmer winters and beach front property, worry about eating and drinking.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Well the AGW proponents are now saying that China will pick up the slack and also Trump has no power anyway and that the States will still comply regardless of whether the US is in the Paris agreement.

I say, great, then no panic at all. The US can pull out and people can choose what to do.

Win / Win all round.

Drama over.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Not completely on topic but I had a thought so I wanted to add. You mentioned all those uncontrollable variables and it had me thinking. We want to try and control the weather yet we don't understand it. There are many natural phenomena that we will be completely unable to control like volcanos, earthquakes, tsunami's etc. At least in the short term. With the consideration of weather modification and control, can't any one of these phenomena really throw us out of wack in our infancy of modifying the weather and in itself cause an avalanche effect we may have never encountered? Dangerous territory. Sorry for not contributing too much to your thread.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Science can't help where it is allowed to place sensors.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: network dude

Not completely on topic but I had a thought so I wanted to add. You mentioned all those uncontrollable variables and it had me thinking. We want to try and control the weather yet we don't understand it. There are many natural phenomena that we will be completely unable to control like volcanos, earthquakes, tsunami's etc. At least in the short term. With the consideration of weather modification and control, can't any one of these phenomena really throw us out of wack in our infancy of modifying the weather and in itself cause an avalanche effect we may have never encountered? Dangerous territory. Sorry for not contributing too much to your thread.


I have voiced this opinion with regard to the SRM ideas when discussing the "chemtrail" topic. The real world testing is just starting and it's my hope that nothing on any large scale is done anytime soon. It's not that I know anymore than anyone else, I just have the same fears you mentioned. With all we don't know, trying to "fix" it might just screw things up more than helping, and if that is done, "my bad" just won't seem to be enough, yet it will be all that we can expect.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I agree. Individual municipalities/states can abide by the Paris Accord all they want. That way we can see firsthand what, if any, economic effect the agreement will likely have. Unlike the sanctuary city arguments, this time they will be adding their own laws, not refusing to honor US law. Not signing a treaty is not the same as codifying the opposite of said treaty.

One thing, though... if the experiments are failures, i.e. their economies collapse, I will oppose Federal bailouts unless the failed policies are rescinded. You don't keep conducting failed experiments; you accept, analyze, and consider the results.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Science can't help where it is allowed to place sensors.


I don't know about that. If the goal was to measure the ambient temperature change of a grocery store parking lot, then a sensor in the middle of the blacktop would make perfect sense, but if that was the case, when asked, that should have been the answer given, not that someone screwed up. I still believe we have an amazing ability to think before acting in most cases.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

the way that was discussed this morning on the news was basically, "all the cool kids are doing it". They did that by stating that only two insignificant nations weren't part of this group.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join