Walk the Walk if the climate is really that important.

a reply to: network dude

You are not a 'denier' but use the word 'climate cult' in your OP.

The evidence is overwhelming. The climate is warming, the sea level is rising.

The changes are not going to happen overnight, but over the course of a century, there are major changes.

No one can deny that human activity has caused a significant rise in CO2 levels. Only a fool can deny that CO2 does not cause warming.

There are consequences and will be more. The doomsday Day After to Tomorrow claims are bogus, no one who understands mans role in climate change is makimg such claims!

originally posted by: jrod


No one can deny / Only a fool can deny
There are consequences and will be more.

LOL, and you wonder why I call it a cult.

OBEY.........OBEY.........OBEY........

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The state of Florida, the Sunshine State makesit extremely difficult to install panels on a house thanks to lobbying by energy giants like FPL.

amp.wftv.com...

So here we have energy companies who produce an enourmous amount of CO2 restricting the private person from making their
footprint smaller.

Yet so many think the climate change controversy is about making more taxes and control yet the power companies and oil giants are the ones lobbying against alternative energy and the ones who are axting as the Merchants of Doubt to convince the lay person climate change is a hoax to levy more taxes and take away freedom.

originally posted by: jrod
The doomsday Day After to Tomorrow claims are bogus, no one who understands mans role in climate change is makimg such claims!

motherboard.vice.com...

It's a banner week for the end of the world, because we've officially pushed atmospheric carbon levels past their dreaded 400 parts per million. Permanently.

do you even understand the things you type?

I know someone that just purchased a beachfront home that was 50+ years old.

I'll let that sink in for a moment. . . . .

a reply to: network dude

This has been one of the biggest pieces of evidence to me that it's not as urgent as we're being preached to, since the people doing the preaching are contributing bigly to the problem. If they really believed what they preached, they'd have effected a drastic change in their lifestyle long ago. They're simply taking advantage of people.

originally posted by: redhorse
a reply to: network dude

They don't care if people drop dead as along as it looks like they are "doing something" with their initiatives to help the environment, but better leave the industries alone. It's ponies and balloons and if tens of thousands of asthmatics die and hundreds of thousands take a dramatic hit to their quality of life... Meh... They still get to feel important.

This is the problem right here. Progressivism is all about optics and feeling good. Look at the ACA. We got more people "covered" on paper. Most of them aren't actually getting healthcare because they can't afford the deductibles, but it looks like we helped people and we can feel good about that. We can start a hashtag campaign about "oppression" here, but we'll ignore real oppression in places we just can't be bothered to go to or try to effect.

a reply to: network dude

You are just going off on a tangent here. Motherboard vice is notorious for sensational rabble rousing stories.

Ignoranceisbliss is right.

Our media, our two party system has madevthiscand us vs them issue void of logic. Your side wants to call everone who understands AGW doom porners and chicken littles. I am not sure what 'my side' is supposed to think of 'deniers' like you given I have more or less off the grid for years on sailboat but I do know you are ignorant of the science and the reality of a changing climate.

One person can not do much. It will take a shift in thinking to make a difference. Solar for example has come a long way, yet Florida residents have to jump through loopholes and pay extra for installing solar thanks to the lobbying powers of FPL and friends.

Do you not see tge hypocrisy in your arguments?

I given clear examples of how power giants are lobbying to make solar difficult for the lay person, yet you ignore it.

a reply to: jrod

You don't think people leading by example might help with that change in thinking that is needed? To see rich elites inconveniencing themselves by giving up parts of their lavish lifestyle for the cause, I think that would go a long way toward convincing skeptics it's a real problem. Right now it just looks like fake pontificating.

a reply to: jrod

well first off, your ignorance is a problem. If you read the OP, I stated that I don't dispute your claims, or any of the data that exists. So the denier label seems kind of dumb. My issue is that if this is such a big issue, then those who lead the charge, should be leading by example. I used the Pope as an example, and found that while he does fly around on a jet, he only leases it, doesn't own it. I'm not sure how that lessens his carbon footprint, but he's the Pope, so whatever.

We still have no alternative to gasoline. We still have to drive cars to get places. So if this is such a big issue, it seems as if the major proponents are not changing and won't for the foreseeable future.

It always irritates me that "your side", feels the need to belittle and label anyone who doesn't fall into the exact category you wish them to be in.

And if you think "The doomsday Day After to Tomorrow claims are bogus, no one who understands mans role in climate change is makimg such claims!", you haven't been paying attention.

www.bbc.com...

Earth warming to climate tipping point, warns study

www.scientificamerican.com...

The world's most outspoken climatologist argues that today's carbon dioxide levels are already dangerously too high. What can we do if he is right?

therevelator.org...

“Five-nine” doesn’t have quite the cadence as “nine-eleven,” but when we look back on the early 21st century, I believe that May 9, 2013 — the day the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in recorded history — may in the future be understood as a far more important date than September 11, 2001. It may even be that 5/9 will be seen as the long-anticipated tipping point at which human impacts caused irrevocable harm to our planet.

Yes, the doomsday claims are out there, and they come from people who you champion as credible.

I just hope that new data will arrive and we will all laugh at the joke this was, if not, then we all die, so my hope likely won't hurt anyone too badly.

a reply to: jrod

So here we have energy companies who produce an enourmous amount of CO2 restricting the private person from making their
footprint smaller.

You are equating two completely different issues. No one has to prove Global Warming to me to get me to oppose mandatory utility hookup. If someone wants to power their home from solar cells, a creek on their property, a windmill, or from rainwater, that's their decision and as long as their home contains the essentials of life (heat, water, shelter) then it's no one else's business.

But when you conflate the two issues, you force people like me to declare ourselves on the opposite side of the issue you mentioned. I am not going to agree that the sea level is rising appreciably until I see direct evidence in at least 50% of the planet's coastlines. I am not going to agree to carbon credit restrictions on energy when there are commercially viable methods to remove it if needed. So if the two issues are conflated, then I cannot do that and say that people have the right to power their home any way they see fit.

If there is a legitimate conflation, it is with Obamacare. Both the Florida utility requirement and Obamacare have something very basic in common: both require that a person buy a product in order to exist. And both are wrong on that point alone. No need to cry about a harmless gas, no need to follow a cult.

Freedom of Religion, baby!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

At least we agree on something.

If you want to see evidence of sea level rise, visit the Florida Keys in the fall durring a full or new moon.

Water coming out of storm drains at high tide might change your mind.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I've said many times in this thread and even in the original post I made that Trump was not a hypocrite. At least I meant to say that in the original post, that is why I pointed out that he was a climate change denier. As for there being evidence for climate change, I think we will have to remain on separate pages as far as that is concerned. I've done a decent amount of reading on the subject, and I believe there is enough evidence to prove that the climate is changing and that it is due to CO2 emissions.

Here are two articles to read if you really are interested in learning about it.

Popsci: Six irrefutable pieces of evidence that prove climate change is real

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

There is plenty of scientific evidence, I don't think that is your problem, I think you may be reading a bunch of emotional articles with misinformation as opposed to scientific articles with facts about the issue. I think a lot of people are motivated to write those kinds of misleading articles because they don't like the idea of suppressing industry today in order to solve a problem tomorrow. Like you, they don't want the government to step in. That's fine, but it doesn't excuse distorting facts and confusing people like you about what is going on factually.

Here is an article of myths you may have been reading regarding climate change not being real, I would check it out, too.

Global Warming and Climate Change Myths

I hope you check out the articles. Maybe you will have something to say. I notice you don't like the idea of the government telling you what to do, that is a separate issue than whether or not climate change is real and caused by CO2 emissions.

I am interested in you getting your facts straight about global warming in this reply, once you do that, you can make an argument about what we should or shouldn't do. I don't mind hearing different opinions about what we should or shouldn't do about an issue, but I do mind watching people be mislead about what the science says.

How can I trust your opinion if it isn't based on facts and evidence? If you admitted the scientific facts, then you could say something like it is too late and there is no reason to stop polluting, or that you would prefer not to be controlled by the government, or that most people personally aren't doing anything to stop it, so neither should you, or that we should be developing positive ways to counter climate change instead of restricting industry.

Go ahead and post links to scientific articles that support your view that the climate is not changing and it is not caused by CO2 emissions. As far as people who understand the dangers of climate change leading by example goes, that is a great idea, I won't argue with it.

a reply to: jrod

If you want to see evidence of sea level rise, visit the Florida Keys in the fall durring a full or new moon.

It is not possible to raise sea level in Florida without a corresponding rise in sea level in New York, California, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa... what Florida is experiencing is localized subsidence of the land mainly due to increased loading from buildings.

TheRedneck

a reply to: darkbake

There is plenty of scientific evidence, I don't think that is your problem, I think you may be reading a bunch of emotional articles with misinformation as opposed to scientific articles with facts about the issue.

You think wrong. All of my positions on the scientific plausibility of man-made, carbon dioxide caused Global Warming are based on scientific principles. My positions on the political fallout/goal of Global Warming are of course based on my reading of the emotional, usually hysterical, articles.

Here is an article of myths you may have been reading regarding climate change not being real

I base none of my beliefs about the possibility of Global Warming being plausible on anything like that.

The reason lies in the wording. A (proper) scientific article has very precise wording to accurately and completely describe the work being done and the results obtained, without introducing preconceptions. Let's take a look at one of those 'myths':

• Why it matters: Carbon dioxide made up 81 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions in 2014. Fossil fuels and certain chemical reactions produce this odorless, colorless gas—a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years.
  
  
• What will help: Reducing fossil fuels is the number one way to reduce atmospheric CO2. Energy efficiency, carbon capture, and market-based controls are among the most effective measures to curb carbon dioxide concentrations.

The first line is one of those "duh" lines. Fossil fuels are the main source of energy, because to date there has been no overall replacement identified. We are harnessing wind, but that could bring it's own, more severe climate problems by reducing the energy in the prevailing winds. We have made much progress in solar, but it is still not reliable stand-alone. We are close to commercial wave energy, great for coastlines, and we are good at harnessing hydro power where there are rivers nearby. But none of those will burn in a car.

Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are composed of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name. If one reduces hydrogen in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, it forms water. If one reduces carbon in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, it forms carbon dioxide. We produce more water than carbon dioxide by mol, because there are more hydrogen atoms in hydrocarbons than there are carbon atoms, especially in the lower-atomic-weight fuels such as methane, ethane, butane, and propane (aka "natural gas"). But water is not classified as a "greenhouse gas" and thus is not counted in that statement. This despite water having much more of the properties associated with "greenhouse gases" than carbon does, and existing normally in much greater quantities.

"a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere" is simply wrong. Carbon dioxide does not trap heat; it absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in three separate narrow bandwidths.

Now to the "what will help" section. Energy efficiency is a good thing. Saving energy allows for lower energy prices overall and reduces energy costs directly. No argument there, but there is a limit to efficiency. We have made great strides toward that limit, and continue to strive forward.

Carbon capture is completely plausible, and becomes more practical as carbon dioxide levels rise. There have been multiple devices introduced for development with working prototypes, but funding has dried up for all of them. Thus, I have no choice to believe that those who are willing to instead spend vast sums of money on climate models are not concerned enough to want to remove the carbon dioxide from the air. Money talks.

Market-based controls is the key phrase here. That is simply code for carbon credits, which is nothing more than a way to raise the prices on energy while limiting the amount of energy available. As mentioned above, any hydrocarbon fuel consumption must produce carbon dioxide and water on earth, thus limiting the amount of carbon dioxide, which limits the amount of fuel that can be consumed and the amount of energy that can be produced. In the process, those who regulate the carbon credits (governments) have a lucrative product to sell with an artificial supply limitation that they control. That is the concern driving Global Warming, not concern over the ecology.

A similar thing has happened with diamonds. They are nowhere near as precious as they are priced to be, because the diamond mines, almost all of which are controlled by a single parent firm, artificially restrict the number of diamonds introduced to the market to maintain the exorbitant prices.

I looked over all three articles, but space is limited in a single post. I will attempt to find time to explain the issues with the other two, in the (hopefully not vain) hope that you are serious about having an intelligent discussion on the science.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Um no. That is an uneducated claim/opinion. While partially true in some areas it is not the cause. If it was, then coastal flooding problem would be a year round problem for the Florida Keys.

www.usnews.com...

a reply to: darkbake

OK, let us examine your second link (sorry, but I switched to intermediate level, because the novice level was mind-numbing). They have some right purty pichers there.


This one, for instance, may be accurate based on current estimates, but I find it strange how the amounts are listed in gigatons rather than ppmv, which would be more appropriate. I suspect the person who made the chart used the gigaton unit because it tends to produce impact on uninformed readers through the use of the term 'giga' and the high numbers. The present carbon dioxide levels are, to indicate the comparison, a little over 400 ppmv, or 0.04% of the atmosphere. I will assume for the sake of argument that this is equivalent to 3000 gigatons.

If the unit usage was simply due to procedural/disciplinary customs, the proper unit would be the teraton. However, most people are not yet familiar with the prefix 'tera' (and to be honest, most simply mentally translate 'giga' as "a whole lot of").

I'm also still waiting for a logical reason why a carbon dioxide observatory was located atop a live volcano (Mauna Loa). But that is beside the point.


The first thing I notice here is that there is no direct indication of the actual range of the various compounds. I see two positions marked 'CO2,' but exactly at what wavenumber (why they can't use wavelength is beyond me) those positions are precisely located. The result is that one area shows a rather wide drop, when carbon dioxide has a very narrow spectral line. Something else is acting for most of that drop (I suspect water vapor), but that is not specified.


This is the one that takes the cake though. Look at the CO2 area! High and wide, and oh, my God what a terrible compound!

Not really. The three carbon dioxide lines are (if my assumptions are correct) those three little tiny lines that extend down. The graph is of radiation, not absorption, meaning the relevant absorptions are the low points. Again, there should properly be some indication of what effect carbon dioxide is actually having, not just a loosely located label.

But that did give me some incentive. I wanted to know where that came from, and a quick search found a site with an excellent graphic. It is too big to fit here (and I simply don't care to resize it), so feel free to see it here.

Notice the graph beside carbon dioxide. It shows three major bands, all of which are narrow. Compare that for a moment to water, which has absorption that covers wide sections of the infrared spectrum. Now take a look at the top section, which is the transmitted radiation. This takes into account the range emitted by the sun and emitted from the earth, and excludes the absorbed radiation. If you compare the right-most carbon dioxide absorption band, the most important one in this context, you will see there is almost no radiation emitted from the planet in that spectra. So no matter how much carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the effect will only be in the absorption spectra, which is already essentially at zero.

Not only that, but notice the three outlines in the top portion. There is only one in the higher frequencies, because the solar output is pretty stationary. The blackbody radiation of the planet, however, varies with temperature. The three lines show this, with the lower temperatures being toward the right and the higher temperatures toward the left. If the planet does warm, less of the outgoing radiation will be in carbon dioxide's absorption spectra, letting more heat escape. If the planet tries to cool, more of the radiation will be absorbed and re-emitted back by carbon dioxide, preventing precious heat to escape. In essence, one could say that carbon dioxide functions as a temperature control keeping the planet habitable. Since the spectra are not temperature related, it would perform this function as long as there was enough to limit the radiation in that spectra; it would not be a linear relationship between temperature and concentration.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

Um, yes.

Federal gauges stationed around the state's coast document the slowly rising water. After decades of almost imperceptible increases, the sea began rising faster about 30 years ago, said William Sweet, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It jumped again beginning in 2006. Now NOAA reports sea levels are rising along parts of the Florida coast by more than a third of an inch every year.

Your link.

All sea level gauges measure sea level relative to some arbitrary point, in this case a spot on land. It makes no difference to the gauge if the sea rises or the land lowers. Also, notice that it says some parts of the Florida coastline are experiencing sea level rise... not all! That is land subsidence, not sea level rise. And finally, to further reinforce, notice that this has been occurring for the past thirty years... not since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Florida began building up in earnest about thirty years ago, if memory serves.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

How do they verify that the reference point on land hasn't moved up or down? One way might be with a gravimeter.

a reply to: face23785

So far as I know, we don't have any gravimeters that sensitive.

TheRedneck