Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15953 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostMon Jul 08, 2019 9:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Why would shorter term concerns de-legitimize longer term concerns?  Flip the priority and pitch the same argument to the man in the mirror.

I do find it interesting to see ultra conservative leaning family members investing in electric vehicles.  I suspect the grandkids have an impact.
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
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 6:43 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Why would shorter term concerns de-legitimize longer term concerns?

Immediate concerns don't delegitimize long term concerns, but for rational people they do reprioritize them.  It's nice that we have the first-world luxury of obsessing about problems that we struggle to even detect.  And I'm probably no more concerned about my fellow man than the next guy, but the whinging about 'climate justice' and 'frontline communities' from the climate alarmists, and their faux concern for sea-level-rise- and future-drought-afflicted people of the world, does ring a little bit hollow when the alarmists won't admit that climate change is far down the priority list (for good reason) for many people of the world.

--------------
John
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
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 7:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Annual change in the world's energy supply 2001-2018, from https://www.worldenergydata.org/world-energy-supply/

Note that last year's growth of energy from fossil fuels was about four times the growth in renewables, and trending up.

annual change world energy
annual change world energy

--------------
John
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: 5197 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostTue Jul 09, 2019 3:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Extreme flash flooding in Washington DC including Whitehouse

Earlier (like 2 months ago) rains in the midwest were said to be 150-400% (CPC July Discussion) or more than normal; last year it was Pennsylvania. Hope I didn't leave anybody out....

Current language CPC:
Quote:
During the past week, CFS, GFS, and ECMWF model guidance have been in generally
good agreement on a circulation transition towards the typical, climatological
summer pattern across the United States. This summer pattern features mean
500-hPa long-wave trough axes near both the Pacific and the Atlantic Coasts,
and a mean ridge axis near the High Plains. West-northwesterly low-amplitude
flow aloft downstream of the ridge axis favors a pattern that is not as cool
and not as wet across the north-central states, which have experienced
excessive rainfall, saturated soils, and devastating floods during the past
30-45 days. While a reduction in precipitation seems reasonable compared to
what has fallen during the past 30-45 days, it is important to remember that
for this part of the Nation summertime is the primary time for the development
of thunderstorm clusters. These clusters (known as Mesoscale Convective
Systems, or MCS's) often develop at night, and may persist well past daybreak.
About 40-45 percent of the annual precipitation received in this region
typically falls during the warm season with these MCS's and frontal systems.
Unfortunately, the record or near-record saturated soils currently across the
North-Central CONUS has resulted in a substantial delay in the planting of
various crops such as corn and soybeans. Elsewhere, over the Southwest/Four
Corners region, July is when the western portion of the subtropical ridge
(known as the Four Corner's High) builds over this part of the country,
attended by the climatological onset of the Southwest Summer Monsoon. Given the
weak El Nino this summer, it is thought that the Four Corner's High could be
shifted somewhat northward of its climatological position, resulting in a
delayed onset of the Monsoon.

Any predictions of economic impacts from GW are just pie in the sky. The events are extreme - beyond previously known records or situations.

General effects like a 7% increase in atmospheric H2O per 1C increase are easy - but that has nothing to do with localized or regional effects or economic costs.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 8:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ahh the hysterics are back in fashion i see.  Some part of the Mississippi river or its tributaries always floods and minor segments of DC got a pretty modest flash flood from isolated slow moving thunderstorms... utterly normal.

Now with New Orleans possibly flooding this weekend we are in for another end of the world media hypefest.  Because a city built at and below sea level on the banks of a river that always floods and also on a tropical storm coast could never possibly flood on its own...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 8:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Well -- you in two posts earlier summarily dismissed any information from Skeptical Science-- so I followed your lead.


And todays lesson shall be... how to determine trustworthiness of sites on the internet 101.

1) If it ends in ".com" it is less likely to be reliable, especially when its main links are to other .coms and data is lacking.

2) if it ends in .gov or .edu it is more likely to be reliable, especially if it is a noted purveyor of scientific data in its field.

Class dismissed.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1587 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 9:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
If the Mekong Delta feeds over half of Vietnam and is on track to be under water by 2100, not because of climate change but because of subsidence due to groundwater depletion, why is climate change the big concern?

Can you clarify for me that you are claiming in this statement that groundwater subsidence is the only factor in the Mekong Delta's land loss? A yes or no is sufficient, since you made your statement so boldly I don't think any qualifiers or amendments are needed, do you?

Regardless of your answer, I wonder why you did not mention the other variables at play in the Mekong Delta. Can you? Would you, if you were not challenged to? Why did you not explain that the Mekong Delta would still face a near total land loss by 2100 even if the groundwater level was restored, was that not in your interest?

While subsidence can be dramatic, it's pretty localized and is a strange cross for you to hold up when trying to ward off your climate change vampires.

Parked Out wrote:
climate change is far down the priority list (for good reason) for many people of the world

Well that makes it sound simple, please elaborate.

Parked Out wrote:
Annual change in the world's energy supply 2001-2018, from https://www.worldenergydata.org/world-energy-supply/ 

Note that last year's growth of energy from fossil fuels was about four times the growth in renewables, and trending up.

Thought the next graph was more interesting, selective choice on your part? Also, each page has multiple typos. Are you satisfied that the same care was taken by Shane when he was putting the data and images together?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 10:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
If you actually want a response from me you'll need to drop the snottiness.

--------------
John
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
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1587 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 11:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
If you actually want a response from me you'll need to drop the snottiness.

Exactly what I expected. Sorry your feelings were hurt.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
Well -- you in two posts earlier summarily dismissed any information from Skeptical Science-- so I followed your lead.


And todays lesson shall be... how to determine trustworthiness of sites on the internet 101.

1) If it ends in ".com" it is less likely to be reliable, especially when its main links are to other .coms and data is lacking.

2) if it ends in .gov or .edu it is more likely to be reliable, especially if it is a noted purveyor of scientific data in its field.

Class dismissed.

Given that foxnews.com, MSNBC.com and WSJ.com all end in .com  I think .com is insufficient evidence to evaluate the credibility of the information on a site.

You out of hand dismissed the information on SkepticalScience.com because it was inconvenient to refute the actual data presented.
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
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Given that foxnews.com, MSNBC.com and WSJ.com all end in .com  I think .com is insufficient evidence to evaluate the credibility of the information on a site.

Not one of those 3 has the slightest shred of scientific credibility.  The first 2 are worth absolutely nothing, and WSJ might be worth a very small amount for maybe getting some simple economic news right from time to time.  So the point stands.  .com is generally to be avoided if you want credibility.

RandyHiker wrote:
You out of hand dismissed the information on SkepticalScience.com because it was inconvenient to refute the actual data"

Lol there was data?  Haha.  Where amongst the nonsense blog posts and hysterical wolf crying was this so called data?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You know you have reached a totally bogus site when a tab is labelled "arguments" another is labeled "donate" and not one contains the word "data".

Lol skepticalscience.com might as well be antivax-healingcrystals.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 2:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
You know you have reached a totally bogus site when a tab is labelled "arguments" another is labeled "donate" and not one contains the word "data".

Lol skepticalscience.com might as well be antivax-healingcrystals.com

Again a simple broad brush dismal.

I posted links to specific refutations of a number popular of Climate Change denial theories.  You haven't refuted any of the specific cases.

In reflecting on the various climate change denial theories posted in this thread by yourself,  MtnGoat and others, I'm not recalling anything that isn't covered by SkepticalScience.com list of popular climate change denial theories.

So it seems that there isn't a lot of original thinking or research going on...
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
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 901 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You posted a link to a trash blog and I indeed dismissed the entire thing as trash, after a quick glance showed no data and multiple simple physics errors.  Come back with something that isnt trash if you want me to give it any significant attention.
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: 15953 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Jul 10, 2019 3:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Trash blog?  Are you referring to Skeptical Science?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science
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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday polecatjoe!
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