Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Government Shutdown

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by hookemdano View Post

    so ya didnt even click on the vid? then we are done with the "discussion"

    its Ted Cruz questioning...some very interesting questions, I might add...questioning the sierra club prez aaron mair...
    Okay, I watched the video. I remember seeing this a couple of years ago and cringing. What made me cringe is the way the Sierra Club pres missed the opportunity to explain the science that has proven man-made climate change.

    This video is a perfect example of why you should not rely on politicians to educate you on science. Cruz completely misrepresented climate data by cherry picking the year 1998 as the beginning of his 18-year "no significant warming" period. You see, 1998 was an anomaly as it was an El Nino year so temperatures were significantly higher than usual. Cruz picked this year and ignored the earlier 8 years in the decade because it would have shown an undeniable significant warming trend. What you really need to look at is at the trend starting at the industrial revolution, and not base your judgement on temporary trends. This reminds me of a coworker who called BS on global warming because it was so cold in NYC on New Years.

    1995 Bayliner 2452 Mercruiser 5.7L Alpha 1 Gen 2

    Comment


    • hookemdano
      hookemdano commented
      Editing a comment
      I am not saying the globe isnt warming....the temp has been going up and down for millions of years...currently it is going up...what I am saying is I do not believe that humans are the cause

      remember the ice age? then it got warmer...no humans to blame back then...

      There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.

      I get it, you feel you have seen enough "science" to prove it.... I have not

    • Fishtank
      Fishtank commented
      Editing a comment
      Do you feel you have seen enough science that proves this rapid global warming /climate change is not caused by man? If so, I would love to see it.

    • hookemdano
      hookemdano commented
      Editing a comment
      you have it backward...I have not seen enough "science" to convince it is man made...

    Funny, from the 30s to the 80s, the big concern was global cooling. There was even a cover story about this in Newsweek in the mid 70s. When that didn't work out anymore, the environmentalists changed it to global warming. Now, many of them just call it climate change so they can cover all the bases.

    Right or wrong, here is how I see it: Climate change has been and always will keep happening. I believe that about 20% of the climate change is man-made, the other 80% of it occurs from nature and is not man-made.

    Of the total, the USA contributes about 20% of the world total in man-made emissions.

    So, if our entire country stopped using any fossil fuels and we became a very cold and dark place, it would only have a 4% effect (20% of 20%) on total climate change in the world. A 4% change in world climate change would not make any meaningful difference but it would certainly destroy any quality of life we have here.

    Btw, thanks for that video of Sen Cruz questioning the president of the Sierra Club. It was very telling how he was unable/unwilling to answer the Senator's questions.
    1998 3587 Bayliner, Port Orchard, WA

    Comment


      Originally posted by baylineguy View Post
      Funny, from the 30s to the 80s, the big concern was global cooling. There was even a cover story about this in Newsweek in the mid 70s. When that didn't work out anymore, the environmentalists changed it to global warming. Now, many of them just call it climate change so they can cover all the bases.

      Right or wrong, here is how I see it: Climate change has been and always will keep happening. I believe that about 20% of the climate change is man-made, the other 80% of it occurs from nature and is not man-made.

      Of the total, the USA contributes about 20% of the world total in man-made emissions.

      So, if our entire country stopped using any fossil fuels and we became a very cold and dark place, it would only have a 4% effect (20% of 20%) on total climate change in the world. A 4% change in world climate change would not make any meaningful difference but it would certainly destroy any quality of life we have here.

      Btw, thanks for that video of Sen Cruz questioning the president of the Sierra Club. It was very telling how he was unable/unwilling to answer the Senator's questions.
      Whoa there... you're throwing around percentages like you have data to back it up, so your conclusion that our country could have only a 4% effect is completely bogus! Let's try to stick to facts and data as we argue. That said, one fact you stated that I agree with is that the earth's climate does cycle naturally. Another fact is that the earth's temperature has been rising at a significantly higher rate than any previous natural cycle since the dinosaurs... that this just happens to coincide with exponentially higher CO2 levels starting with the industrial revolution. The probability of these two occurrences in tandem can't be refuted scientifically. Also, the term "climate change" is now used instead of "global warming" because deniers didn't seem to understand that global warming is the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature, in which case some areas of the planet take the brunt of the warming (polar regions) and others may even cool. The problem with the polar regions taking the brunt is that the melting ice will result in increased sea levels... the impact of which is obvious.
      1995 Bayliner 2452 Mercruiser 5.7L Alpha 1 Gen 2

      Comment


        Originally posted by Fishtank View Post

        Whoa there... you're throwing around percentages like you have data to back it up, so your conclusion that our country could have only a 4% effect is completely bogus! Let's try to stick to facts and data as we argue. That said, one fact you stated that I agree with is that the earth's climate does cycle naturally. Another fact is that the earth's temperature has been rising at a significantly higher rate than any previous natural cycle since the dinosaurs... that this just happens to coincide with exponentially higher CO2 levels starting with the industrial revolution. The probability of these two occurrences in tandem can't be refuted scientifically. Also, the term "climate change" is now used instead of "global warming" because deniers didn't seem to understand that global warming is the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature, in which case some areas of the planet take the brunt of the warming (polar regions) and others may even cool. The problem with the polar regions taking the brunt is that the melting ice will result in increased sea levels... the impact of which is obvious.
        On polar ice caps: From what I understand, the arctic ice cap has been shrinking, but the antarctic ice cap has actually been growing.

        You said that the industrial revolution increased CO2 levels which raised world temperatures. The industrial revolution started in the 1800s and grew rapidly throughout the 1900s. How do you explain the fact that global temperatures dropped which led people to be concerned about global cooling in much of the 1900s?

        Glad to see you agree that climate change occurs naturally as well as man-made. It was not man that caused those 6 different ice ages in ancient history. I think it is about a 20-80 split (man-made/natural). What do you think the split is?

        Also, what percentage do you believe that the USA contributes to global pollution/warming through its use of fossil fuels?

        Nobody will hold you to your numbers because no one knows for sure. I'm just trying to get some sort of consensus/average that is reasonable.

        1998 3587 Bayliner, Port Orchard, WA

        Comment


          Originally posted by baylineguy View Post

          On polar ice caps: From what I understand, the arctic ice cap has been shrinking, but the antarctic ice cap has actually been growing.

          You said that the industrial revolution increased CO2 levels which raised world temperatures. The industrial revolution started in the 1800s and grew rapidly throughout the 1900s. How do you explain the fact that global temperatures dropped which led people to be concerned about global cooling in much of the 1900s?

          Glad to see you agree that climate change occurs naturally as well as man-made. It was not man that caused those 6 different ice ages in ancient history. I think it is about a 20-80 split (man-made/natural). What do you think the split is?

          Also, what percentage do you believe that the USA contributes to global pollution/warming through its use of fossil fuels?

          Nobody will hold you to your numbers because no one knows for sure. I'm just trying to get some sort of consensus/average that is reasonable.
          No, Antarctic ice is at a record low. Even when it did have an an instance of growth in 2015, the amount of ice melting in the Arctic FAR outweighed that gained in the Antarctic, netting a substantial loss of global ice.

          The global temp drop in the early 1900s were a fluctuation in the trend (see below).

          I don't know what the split would be because there is no data to suggest that the earth is in a natural warming climate change... which means that it could be 100% human caused. At the rate it is increasing though it would seem that the natural change could only account for maybe 10 or 20% tops.

          The thing is, nobody can prove that humans are not causing climate change, AND climate change is and will likely result in catastrophic impacts globally and to America. You buy home insurance, right? So, you pay say $1000/yr for something you'll probably never need to hedge your bets in case the thing burns to the ground. If it doesn't, the great! Just think of things like The Clean Power Plan and other initiatives to curb CO2 as insurance plans that you pay your share for in case man-made climate change is real, and by racing to fix it now we could save our civilization as we know it down the road (including America's interests!). If someone can PROVE the risk is not real, then that would be fantastic but it hasn't happened.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	snap.gif
Views:	2
Size:	10.5 KB
ID:	407580
          Attached Files
          1995 Bayliner 2452 Mercruiser 5.7L Alpha 1 Gen 2

          Comment


          • baylineguy
            baylineguy commented
            Editing a comment
            So, if increasing global temps are directly related to higher CO2 levels, then lets all plant more trees.

          • Fishtank
            Fishtank commented
            Editing a comment
            Sounds good to me

          Instead of cherry picking time periods to try and prove the direct relationship between earth's temperatures and CO2 levels, lets look at a chart that covers many millions of years, going well back before man even existed on earth. 3 things are immediately obvious:
          CO2 levels in early history have been much higher than they are now including periods before humans even existed.
          There is no relationship between CO2 levels and earth temperatures in the long term.
          Current CO2 levels remain below historical averages.

          Using your own chart, if man were such a large factor in CO2 levels, why is it that during the period from 1940 to 1980 when the world was churning out pollution spewing vehicles and pollution spewing factories were opening up right and left, did temperatures remain stable? Conversely, why is from then to the present when emissions have been shaved to a very small fraction of what they had been, suddenly temperatures are rising?

          The reason is that man is a small factor in climate change. I may well be overestimating it with my 20/80 number of man-made vs natural cause of temperature change.

          That being said, I am all for protecting the environment and I am glad that manufacturers have reduced emissions so dramatically. Also, over time and as it becomes more price competitive, we see more renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.That is our insurance policy to minimize man's effect on global temps.

          That and plant more trees to help reduce CO2 levels.






          Click image for larger version

Name:	co2_temperature_historical.png
Views:	1
Size:	326.1 KB
ID:	407725
          1998 3587 Bayliner, Port Orchard, WA

          Comment


            Originally posted by baylineguy View Post
            Instead of cherry picking time periods to try and prove the direct relationship between earth's temperatures and CO2 levels, lets look at a chart that covers many millions of years, going well back before man even existed on earth. 3 things are immediately obvious:
            CO2 levels in early history have been much higher than they are now including periods before humans even existed.
            There is no relationship between CO2 levels and earth temperatures in the long term.
            Current CO2 levels remain below historical averages.

            Using your own chart, if man were such a large factor in CO2 levels, why is it that during the period from 1940 to 1980 when the world was churning out pollution spewing vehicles and pollution spewing factories were opening up right and left, did temperatures remain stable? Conversely, why is from then to the present when emissions have been shaved to a very small fraction of what they had been, suddenly temperatures are rising?

            The reason is that man is a small factor in climate change. I may well be overestimating it with my 20/80 number of man-made vs natural cause of temperature change.

            That being said, I am all for protecting the environment and I am glad that manufacturers have reduced emissions so dramatically. Also, over time and as it becomes more price competitive, we see more renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.That is our insurance policy to minimize man's effect on global temps.

            That and plant more trees to help reduce CO2 levels.






            Click image for larger version

Name:	co2_temperature_historical.png
Views:	1
Size:	326.1 KB
ID:	407725
            First of all, pay close attention to the scale (years) on the chart you posted... it is easy to misinterpret that chart to infer that rate of temperature changes were more drastic than they actually were! As for the Earth's temperatures being much higher than they are now, there is no debating that! Over the course of hundreds of millions of years the Earth's climate changes drastically. The problem is that the rate of temperature increase that we're seeing now is unprecedented and what has taken ~100 years or so would have taken thousands of years when you compare historic non-man made climate change events. As a species, we can't adapt to this rapid climate change and most species on the planet can't either... so what we're looking at is a man-made mass extinction at some point. Do you want to roll the dice on that? How about we just protect the damn environment and cut CO2 until someone can PROVE otherwise... because there is currently very compelling (undeniable according to nearly all climate scientists) evidence that we must do something. I'll put my money on the best odds to hedge our bet against the biggest possible risk.
            1995 Bayliner 2452 Mercruiser 5.7L Alpha 1 Gen 2

            Comment


              Originally posted by Fishtank View Post

              First of all, pay close attention to the scale (years) on the chart you posted... it is easy to misinterpret that chart to infer that rate of temperature changes were more drastic than they actually were! As for the Earth's temperatures being much higher than they are now, there is no debating that! Over the course of hundreds of millions of years the Earth's climate changes drastically. The problem is that the rate of temperature increase that we're seeing now is unprecedented and what has taken ~100 years or so would have taken thousands of years when you compare historic non-man made climate change events. As a species, we can't adapt to this rapid climate change and most species on the planet can't either... so what we're looking at is a man-made mass extinction at some point. Do you want to roll the dice on that? How about we just protect the damn environment and cut CO2 until someone can PROVE otherwise... because there is currently very compelling (undeniable according to nearly all climate scientists) evidence that we must do something. I'll put my money on the best odds to hedge our bet against the biggest possible risk.
              Looking at that very long term chart, the recent upturn in temperatures doesn't look as steep as it did numerous times in past eons- and those all occurred naturally with no human influence.

              I'm also still wondering about this question that you didn't address:

              "Using your own chart, if man were such a large factor in CO2 levels, why is it that during the period from 1940 to 1980 when the world was churning out pollution spewing vehicles and pollution spewing factories were opening up right and left, why did temperatures remain stable? Conversely, why is from then to the present when emissions have been shaved to a very small fraction of what they had been, suddenly temperatures are rising?"

              I'm all for protecting the environment but let's not let it hurt the USA competitive position as it was with Obama and the Paris climate accord. Sure, we could throw billions to China and others but that will not solve the problem,,,It will only hurt the US economic position.

              In the meantime, let's all plant more trees which absorbs CO2 out of the atmosphere.
              1998 3587 Bayliner, Port Orchard, WA

              Comment


                Originally posted by baylineguy View Post

                Looking at that very long term chart, the recent upturn in temperatures doesn't look as steep as it did numerous times in past eons- and those all occurred naturally with no human influence.
                Please look at the scale on the x-axis. The steep portions of the past eons you're referring to occurred over millions of years whereas the recent temperature changes are reflective of only a few hundreds of years. This is an extremely important observation to make if you're comparing eons-past with that last hundred years or so!

                Originally posted by baylineguy View Post
                "Using your own chart, if man were such a large factor in CO2 levels, why is it that during the period from 1940 to 1980 when the world was churning out pollution spewing vehicles and pollution spewing factories were opening up right and left, why did temperatures remain stable? Conversely, why is from then to the present when emissions have been shaved to a very small fraction of what they had been, suddenly temperatures are rising?"
                Instead of paraphrasing scientists and data proving human-caused global warming... just take a few minutes and read this from Nasa: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                If you disagree with the climate scientists and irrefutable data, then that is on you. I just can't get myself to believe something so contrary to the rationale of the entire planet's scientific community.

                Originally posted by baylineguy View Post
                I'm all for protecting the environment but let's not let it hurt the USA competitive position as it was with Obama and the Paris climate accord. Sure, we could throw billions to China and others but that will not solve the problem,,,It will only hurt the US economic position.
                The USA competitive position would be improved because it would cause us to invest in the very technologies as well as the development of those very technologies that will be absolutely required in the future as global warming escalates and progressively devastates the environment as well as economies of every country in the world.

                Originally posted by baylineguy View Post
                In the meantime, let's all plant more trees which absorbs CO2 out of the atmosphere.
                Hey, glad we're on the same page on this one!!!
                1995 Bayliner 2452 Mercruiser 5.7L Alpha 1 Gen 2

                Comment

                Working...
                X