Deep South Deep Freeze (1 Viewer)

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
When I start to read both sides which are represented by equally qualified "experts", my eyes start to cross and my head begins to spin.

Perhaps you need to review their credentials rather than deal with the science.

You will find most the nay-sayers are unqualified in the field or paid by fossil fuel companies. The few not covered by this description them had had their arguments logically demolished.

In fact I challenge any of the nay-sayers here to name a scientist and link to their argument against climate change being real. I will show you where they have gone wrong.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
At one time the Sahara was a savanna, what is now the Southern United States had two growing seasons (about the same time Erik the Red started getting people to immigrate to "Greenland") .

The Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a redistribution of heat due to changes in ocean currents, particularly the El Nino and Atlantic Oscillations. It warmed the North Atlantic but the Pacific cooled. Moreover it wasn't as coordinated as legend would suggest with various locations undergoing changes up and down against a falling trend.

BTW Contrary to popular myth, the evidence is that it didn't affect Greenland.

Truth be told, the climate changes on this planet and we can't stop it from doing so. Only a very self important narcissist would make claim such as this. We can identify factors that contribute to warming or cooling. We can't stop this behavior though, at least until someone can arrange for solar weather to be controlled.

There is clear evidence that carbon pollution of the atmoshpere has affected climate so it is ridiculous to claim that we cannot influence it.

I am a tad skeptical of those who trade on fear though, so if you make your money by selling "Carbon Credits" after prostlytizing about an ice-less Arctic, I see you as having just as vested an interest in selling "Climate change" as oil companies have in denying it.

Then by your standards of judgement, any seriously dangerous change must be ignored because it frightens people. Science deals with the facts, not the reaction.

Likewise I'm as skeptical of "Science" paid for by a given industry, even if said industry is "Green".

There is a lot of independent science backing Climate Change. The "science" denying it is paid for by fossil fuel companies.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
Methane comes from bovine exhalation associated with rumination (in this case, the literal biological meaning of that word) and termite farts from fallen, wet trees being broken down in rain forests. More methane is emitted from those two sources than from all transportation-related (man-made) sources combined in the whole world. The ocean also emits methane as it bubbles up from deep sources. Our Earth is a giant methane maker. It puts us to shame in terms of how much it creates.

Actually the biggest green house gas is water vapour dure to the sheer quantity of it.

Other gases such as methane and CO2 also contribute. Our climatic conditions are as a result of an equilibrium with the contents of the atmosphere. Without them the climate would be considerably colder.

Adding more greenhouse gas shifts that equilibrium upwards.

You should also be aware of the positive feedback mechanisms where melting of the permafrost and the increasing ocean temperatures is releasing vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. This methane increase can be measured from satellites.

You know what comes between ice ages? THAWING ages where things get warmer. And those prior situations occurred world wide and without Man's industrial-economic manufacturing emissions to drive it.

We have been going into and out of glaciation on a regular cycle for millions of years. The triggers are quite well understood. Until industrialisation the planet's temperature was in slow decline, on schedule for a descent into the next glaciation over the next few thousand years.

That decline reversed in the mid twentieth century and continues to accelerate towards warm. Yes there are natural cycles and most of them would be driving temperatures down but for being overwhelmed by the increase in carbon dioxide and methane.

Juries don't convict on "balance of probability." They convict on certainty.

In criminal cases yes. But in civil cases it is the balance of probability. The onus aught to be on the combustion technology to prove it is not dangerous.

The reason those pollution sources are growing with increased intensity is because the world's population is growing. They are DEMANDING more products and energy.

We have technologies that can provide that without pollution. Cheap energy is the key to solving many industrial problems. For example Aluminium and Titanium both allow far greater efficiency in transport technologies but require huge amounts of energy to produce. Coal will never become cheaper, Cost of solar and wind continue to plummet.

So... which nations are we going to penalize by saying "You can't have any more" or "you can't make any more" or "you can't consume any more" ???

The wealthiest nations have the resources to fund change. Moreover they have built that wealth on carbon pollution. The US is by far the greater per capita polluter and should be shouldering the largest load, not as Trump is doing, and favouring old dirty technologies because his cronies have investments in it.

The truly ridiculous aspect of his stupidity (and that of my own Australian Federal government who are following the same script) is that investment in renewable technologies represents the greatest development opportunity available and will increase prosperity. China and many European countries have already work this out and will gain great advantage .
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,003
I am in favor of renewable energy sources. I acknowledge that our climate is changing in violent ways. I am convinced by the evidence and recognize the medical nightmares associated with industrial effluents of all kinds. I would not cry if the world sought to better control these effluents. I am simply not convinced of the cause-and-effect relationship claimed between the effluents and the climate changes. Can't say it any clearer than that.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
9,110
The US is by far the greater per capita polluter and should be shouldering the largest load, not as Trump is doing, and favouring old dirty technologies because his cronies have investments in it.
.

Yes GWB was the same, pulled out of the Kyoto agreement just as Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement. Sadly that gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the American populace cares nothing for environmental issues.

Col
 

Mark_

Longboard on the internet
Local time
Today, 07:51
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
2,111
Galaxiom,

So you have the ego to say man can control the weather? You have the ego to think you can dictate how the sun acts?

I never posted that we don't impact climate, more I posted that we have ignorant people who think man is the ONLY source of climate change. So are you one of the ignorant fanatics who think only MAN impacts climate or are you reasonable enough to acknowledge there are other factors at play?

Course if you are a true believer you won't accept that a volcano can introduce as much CO2 as a years worth of driving, or that a wild fire can release about a ton worth per tree... Then again there are those who want to quote science without bothering to learn more than just what they've been spoon fed by politicians and the media.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
Another article today shows that 2017 was the second warmest year in recorded US history according to NASA.

And there are unlimited resources online that show the correlation between climate change, the ice caps melting in the North Pole, and why that causes colder weather in the region, albeit for a limited time.

And keep in mind that some parts of the US are actually experiencing record highs at the moment.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
And regardless of our impact on climate change, what is the harm in reducing our footprint in pollution and harmful gases? We can only leave the world in a better condition for future generations. Whether it impacts climate change or not, it definitely impacts the health of the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
So you have the ego to say man can control the weather? You have the ego to think you can dictate how the sun acts?

No I didn't say we could control weather. However we can certainly influence climate. Only a fool would think that releasing 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day would have no effect on the planet.

I never posted that we don't impact climate, more I posted that we have ignorant people who think man is the ONLY source of climate change. So are you one of the ignorant fanatics who think only MAN impacts climate or are you reasonable enough to acknowledge there are other factors at play?

If you knew anything about the subject you would know that cycles of the Sun and a myriad of other factors are already accounted for in the Climate Change analysis. Not one credible paper exists naming a single unaccounted for climate influencer. It is all about there being "something" that scientists haven't noticed yet as the major cause of the dramatic changes going on, despite the fact that analysis the known mechanisms reproduce the observed trends quite well.

Course if you are a true believer you won't accept that a volcano can introduce as much CO2 as a years worth of driving, or that a wild fire can release about a ton worth per tree... Then again there are those who want to quote science without bothering to learn more than just what they've been spoon fed by politicians and the media.

Here you demonstrate your utter contempt for science and your profound ignorance by bringing up one of the most common pieces of misinformation propounded by the true-deniers. It is you who needs to check the facts.

The average total CO2 output of all volcanoes is about one percent of the human emissions.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

No doubt you will deny that as a part of a giant conspiracy of misinformation involving hundreds of thousands of scientists being paid off by vested interests. I challenge you to link to a contrary finding.

Of course I know that a burning tree emits carbon into the atmosphere. Humans are burning forests and other carbon stores too. Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of droughts, resulting in even more fires. It is yet another of the positive feedback mechanisms that make climate change so dangerous and why we need to take action.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,003
Damn, sorry this turned into a free-for-all. I was just complaining about the weather (but not otherwise doing anything.)

And guys, PLEASE don't start down the path of "ignorant" and "arrogant" name calling. I apologize for going stream-of-unconsciousness on a cold morning.

For what it is worth, I don't think ANY of you are ignorant. Even Colin Essex isn't ignorant. He is a man with a selectively anti-social attitude, which is a different statement. Stated another way, he's not a dumb prick. Sometimes he's a smart prick.

Sadly that gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the American populace cares nothing for environmental issues.

You missed my point earlier, apparently, or are discounting it. In a country where any major attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions has the side effect of damaging the economy (by costing more money to replace the old methods with newer ones), and that country's policies ultimately are subject to voters who elect the policy makers, HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL will you get folks to agree that THEY should be the ones to suffer? THINK about it. A side effect of electing DJT was to also elect a lot of conservatives in a lot of states. DJT rode a wave of discontent with Liberal policies. This is a predictable result.
 

Brianwarnock

Retired
Local time
Today, 14:51
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
12,701
What an amazing thread, any sensible person would have read Doc's first paragraph in his first post for what it was, which was not an attack on the climate change argument , or anything else.
I've known people who said " bring it on " when the term Global warmig was used and then wondered about it being cold , yes Doc it was correct to change it to Climate change.

Hope it warms up for Mardi Gras it would be a pity for no skin to be on show.

Brian
 

Wayne

Crazy Canuck
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
176
Hi Doc,

I live in Canada, and we get that kind of weather for most of the winter, but being in the "Great White North", we are used to it (don't like it much, but used to it nonetheless).And we have the snow and ice removal equipment to deal with it. I used to travel in the States a lot, and whenever it snowed in the Deep South, everything just shut down, largely because those States didn't have the equipment to deal with it.They don't get this weather all the time, so why invest in snowplows that will only be used once every 5 years?

As for some of the replies to your original post, I understood it to be a comment on the weather you are experiencing, not a political statement on climate change. We Canadians complain about the weather on a daily basis in the winter. It's just small talk, not political statements, because it is something that unites us all.

Cheer up, summer is coming....

Wayne
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 10:51
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
Florida is considerably unprepared for snow or ice. The roads and public offices are pretty much shut down until everything melts with a coming clear day. Nobody has snow tires, plows, or salt for the road.

It also hasn't really snowed in Florida since 1989. Even the threat of snow last week turned out to be over-inflated. It's certainly not completely unheard of for North Florida to have sub-freezing temperatures during the Winter at times.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,003
Even in cold weather, the die-hards of Mardi Gras will find a way to expose SOMETHING briefly. Unfortunately, in the cold weather, they have to be liberally protected with their favorite flavor of anti-freeze, which means the marchers might then have trouble walking in straight lines. On the other hand, the spectators will be so liberally protected that they might have trouble SEEING in straight lines, so maybe it will all cancel out and nobody will notice any problems.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:51
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,849
In a country where any major attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions has the side effect of damaging the economy (by costing more money to replace the old methods with newer ones),

Yeah, look how badly damaged the German economy is from pursuing renewable energy.:rolleyes:

"Damaging the economy" is a myth promulgated by fossil fuel companies and swallowed by people who have little or no understanding of economics. What they are really concerned about is is "damaging their own profits".

Unfortunately they also pay to load parliament with cronies who will comply with their best interests. The revolving door between politics and mining companies is so busy in Australia that they need to replace the bearings.;)

Consequently we have the most ridiculous situation where the government has promised to eliminate all subsidies to renewable energy and is even proposing to subsidise the construction of new coal fired power stations despite the entire power industry saying that they have absolutely no intention of going down that road. They flatly refuse to introduce any carbon pricing schemes.

Recently the CEO of one of the power generators was hauled before the Prime Minister and told that they must extend the life of an old power station they planned to close by another five years. He told them to go jump. Economically it makes absolutely no sense. It is all about propping up the fossil fuel industry, mainly because the banks are very exposed due to very poor lending decisions made over the past decade.

Meanwhile, the combination of intense heat and a lack of investment in new power generation for the past decade has resulted in problems with the reliability of supply and some of the highest power prices in the world. The lack of investment is due to no bipartisan policy directions by a series of federal governments caught between the current opposition party with serious ambitions toward renewable energy and the current power holder having incredibly reactionary policy.

Fortunately state governments and the Australian people themselves are investing, seeing the current Federal Government's direction as really quite bizarre. The rising prices and temperatures are driving more and more people towards rooftop solar, mainly to run air conditioning and pool filtration.

Of course every time there is a power outage the federal government blames the "ideological rush to solar by some states". Meanwhile the analysis shows the failures to be largely due to the control systems of old power stations failing in the hot weather.

Another myth is the idea that huge new proposed coal mines will bring employment to regional areas. The fact is that mining is largely automated with new technologies virtually eliminating human labour right from the coal face to the port using autonomous trucks, trains and loading equipment.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:51
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,003
Actually I'm with you on the idea of "failing control systems" probably due to age and the old engineering adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This is why I'm neither fully Conservative nor fully Liberal. I would like some balance, but these days there is none to be found.

I'm not a fan of coal, either, though I understand that some newer treatment methods help with the emissions somewhat. But the older style coal plants? Close 'em now and move on. Old-style coal plants have more particulate emissions than you can shake a stick at, to use the vernacular. Remember, I really do want cleanup to occur; just not necessarily for the same reasons as other people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom