Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
straydog
slave to a monolith



Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs
Location: North Bend
straydog
  Top

slave to a monolith
PostWed Feb 15, 2017 10:32 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Did you actually watch those videos and comprehend them?

Every scientist (not climate scientists) presented acknowledged anthropomorphic warming due to CO2, they just have differing opinions on the impact and attempted to trivialize the outcome (note: none of them provided any data support those opinions). Everything else was just more blathering by unqualified people.

And a comedian? You're taking the word of a dead comedian as evidence that AGW and climate change don't exist? Funniest thing is... you didn't really understand what Carlin was saying (yeah... I've been a fan of Carlin since the 70's)

When it comes to the "anti GW information" you're providing? Yes. "out there" is right.

And there you go again with "you guys..."  suuure.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 484 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostWed Feb 15, 2017 11:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe wrote:
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare!

Investors Business Daily


"At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."

This isnt news to any of us that know this has been a SCAM from the begging.

Curses!  The true purpose of our fiendishly clever plan to destroy capitalism and install a one-world government has been discovered, just as we were on the brink of success.  We have clearly underestimated the intelligence of the common inhabitants of this planet.  Our overlords on Planet Claire will be greatly displeased.

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
NacMacFeegle
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2573 | TRs
Location: United States
NacMacFeegle
  Top

Member
PostWed Feb 15, 2017 11:21 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
straydog wrote:
Quote:
You guys are

I stopped reading at "You guys are...".

Sure, let's put everyone you disagree with into a bucket based on some percieved identity... yeah, that's gonna create great conversation.

ditto.gif
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Ivar Giaever won a nobel prize for "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors" - that doesn't make him a climate science expert.
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Dr William Happer Destroys Climate Change Hysteria in 7 minutes

Dr William Happer is a shill: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeace-subterfuge-tests-climate-research.html?_r=0

Quote:
Over a period of several months, two Greenpeace employees posed as representatives of energy companies and offered to pay prominent commentators on climate change to write papers that extolled the benefits of coal and carbon emissions. The Greenpeace workers also asked that the payments not be disclosed.
Frank Clemente, a professor emeritus of sociology at Penn State, agreed to write a paper on coal on behalf of a coal mining firm that he was told was based in Indonesia. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton, agreed to write a paper at the request of an unnamed oil and gas company in the Middle East.

One of Happer's most common bits of false information is that more CO2 is good for plants, a frequently repeated bit of nonsense that is easily disproved. https://skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria

You're using "The Bolt Report" (Australian Faux News) as a source?  lol.gif
Backpacker Joe wrote:
George Carlin on Global Warming

Because a comedic performance from 1992 is such a good source rolleyes.gif
Backpacker Joe wrote:
The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

Propaganda film.
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Al Gore - I Was Wrong About Global Warming... Learn About It

This garbage video is falsely titled -  I'm beginning to think you didn't actually bother to watch any of these.......
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?

PragerU, a known purveyor of false and misleading information - right wing propaganda.

--------------
Read my hiking related stories and more at http://illuminationsfromtheattic.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7570 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostWed Feb 15, 2017 12:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Meanwhile, even Republicans who don't have their heads in the sand on climate are making some smart proposals (which btw don't even come close to "destroying capitalism").

‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 16, 2017 5:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe wrote:
In the 70's we were headed to the next ice age.  In the late 60's scientists talked about humanity dying because we couldn't feed everyone.  This is politically motivated!

I agree, you are politically motivated.....nothing more, nothing less.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs

Humptulips
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 02, 2017 11:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Never thought I would post in this but I found this video to be very informative and interesting
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15744 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Mar 09, 2017 2:46 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That was an informative video.  He basically points out we are in an ice age which should delight deniers to no end, then comes the 2x4 of reality that AGW has reversed trend in an ice age (slide at 46:00).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 1862 | TRs
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
  Top

aka friendly hiker
PostThu Mar 09, 2017 6:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Humptulips wrote:
Never thought I would post in this but I found this video to be very informative and interesting

I agree... Excellent video Humptulips.  Very interesting to hear things from a geologist's perspective looking back in deep time.  Thanks for posting this.  ~z

Some points I noted:  Orbital variations (of the Earth) have dominated our climate.  If I understand correctly, it's how we are positioned in space to receive the sun's light/energy.  Some years the tilt on our axis or the wobble effect, etc. causes this variation of light exposure.  He does a great job of separating climate from weather and talking about big movements of temperature over millions of years versus "noise"--the noticeable cycles that we experience in our human lives.

30:30 or so according to his research (he studies core samples) we should be heading into an ice age about now.  The solar input is dropping and the climate should be deteriorating.  He asks rhetorically:  What happened?  The answer is we (humans) happened.  Our activities have increased CO2 and methane--particularly since the advent of agriculture/animal husbandry and later industry.

I won't repeat the entire video here, but it was interesting at minute 46:30 When he shows The Bottom Line chart which is a map showing the sea level rise by 2100 C.E.  Even if you skip around in this video you will come across some interesting points.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostSat Mar 11, 2017 1:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
With respect to comments about going into an ice age about now, it's important to note that for recent glaciation cycles, it takes the better part of 100,000 years to go from the warmest point in the interglacial (where we have been recently) to the coldest point. Meanwhile, human-caused global warming is somewhere around a few decades old and the projected warming is measured in terms of a century or two.

50 vs. about 80,000.

So even if we humans continue to burn fossil fuels and cause a horrendous warming episode, assuming we run out of those fossil fuels in the upcoming few centuries, or stop burning them for some other reason, nature will start the process - very slow to us - to start cleaning that excess junk out of the atmosphere. It will takes thousands to tens of thousands of years for nature to remove the bulk of it. I've read that in 5000 years or so, maybe half of the extra concentrations will have been absorbed into surface rocks, from whence the process continues but slows.

And then when most of it has been reabsorbed, the coming ice age will just take up where it would have been anyway, just getting started. Maybe in 50,000 years the declining warming episode will have some effect in lessening the glaciation, maybe not. The time scale of the two things is simply too different to justify any comparison.

While orbital variations drive the periodicity of glaciation, the thing that really controls whether there is glaciation or not is the position of the continents. When continental drift is such that land masses are concentrated together in the tropics, the oceanic waters freely mix between the poles and the tropics, keeping the poles much warmer and preventing glaciation. It is the current layout of land, mostly blocking tropical waters from warming the poles, that allows the orbital mechanics to create glaciation, which has been absent for most of earths history.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 16, 2017 5:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brilliant...baked into all kinds of programs is the use of the 'social' cost of carbon to justify intervention and interference.

But what happens if you set the 'social' cost...to zero?

Quote:
Over the next year, a team of economists, scientists, and lawyers from across the federal government convened to come up with a dollar amount for the economic cost of carbon emissions. Whatever value they hit upon would be used to determine the scope of regulations aimed at reducing the damage from climate change. The bigger the estimate, the more costly the rules meant to address it could be. After a year of modeling different scenarios, the team came up with a central estimate of $21 per metric ton, which is to say that by their calculations, every ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere imposed $21 of economic cost. It has since been raised to around $40 a ton.

This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years. From capping the carbon emissions of power plants to cutting down on the amount of electricity used by the digital clock on a microwave, the SCC has given the Obama administration the legal justification to argue that the benefits these rules provide to society outweigh the costs they impose on industry.

It turns out that the same calculation used to justify so much of Obama’s climate agenda could be used by President-elect Donald Trump to undo a significant portion of it. As Trump nominates people who favor fossil fuels and oppose climate regulation to top positions in his cabinet, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency and former Texas Governor Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, it seems clear that one of his primary objectives will be to dismantle much of Obama’s climate and clean energy legacy. He already appears to be focusing on the SCC.


--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15744 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Mar 16, 2017 6:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Reminds me of when I worked as an actuary in corporate and tried to educate senior management about the cost of certain product features.  Nonsense like guaranteeing 5% stock market returns over long periods, or 3% minimum interest rates.  One thing I know is smell test worked very well in hindsight.  Of course, management listened to those that told them what they wanted to hear.

I don't know the intricacies of the methodology or framework used to estimate SCC which could impact the choice of an appropriate discount rate.  Current long term interest rates are 3%.  The discount rate needs to be consistent with other assumptions, and could vary depending on what framework is used.  For example, if a 7% discount was used, other assumptions may need to be tweaked as well.  I think the last paragraph of the article says it all.

Quote:
For climate economists, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Frances Moore, an assistant professor at the University of California at Davis, has co-authored a paper that suggests the cost of carbon should be much higher, closer to $200 a ton, or about five times higher than current estimates. “It comes down to whether or not you value the future,” she says. “Arguing for a lower number means you inherently don’t.”
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5141 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 17, 2017 9:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Brilliant...baked into all kinds of programs is the use of the 'social' cost of carbon to justify intervention and interference.

But what happens if you set the 'social' cost...to zero?

You would be naive and would get no supportable conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Mar 17, 2017 9:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Conclusions depend upon premises.

If the premise is to short circuit the functioning of climate related regulatory actions now scattered throughout the bureaucracy by setting one of the key variables to zero, it would seem the conclusion is supportable.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostSat Mar 18, 2017 8:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It seems that using the word "social" in social cost is very loaded. I normally interpret a social cost as one that is not an out-of-pocket cost. As in the social cost of lots of online social networking is the loss of direct interaction with people. Or having an interest different from a spouse or friend results in a social cost of spending less time with them.

The costs of carbon may be distributed and not easy to calculate with great precision, but they are very real and slam people's and government's pocket books.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10936 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSat Mar 18, 2017 4:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
And if they're not real the costs are zero.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Beave, Gruenk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy