zerostao

climate chaos

Recommended Posts

 “It’s the very picture of weather weirding due to climate change. Something that would absolutely not happen in a normal world,”

 

*facepalm*    I'd like to see this guy actually procure evidence that this has not happened before

 

“Like many extreme events resulting from human-forced climate change

 

just more assumption...is he also blaming the el nino we had this past year on humans, too?  :rolleyes:  the polar vortex, that's because of humans too right? *leaves handprint on face*

 

 

 

these fkn guys just love to extrapolate linearly in their heads....

 

 

I'm not saying all these atmospheric phenomena are inconsequential, but the way these fools kneejerk the climate change agenda, it just kills any credibility they might have had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,”

 

and now we dont even need Mann's horrendous "math" (or whatever you want to call those statistical manglings) or their terribly faulty GCMs?  lol!

 

 

 

I think this quote sums it up great:

 

 

 

Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying.

former Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it'd be great if we could have common sense discussions about the climate without idiots talking about co2, carbon footprints, or "manmade climate change."  until natural variability is well understood, you're simply not going to have anything remotely accurate regarding man's effect on natural variability.  we still have a crappy sub par solar model that cant predict changes in the sun, we have GCMs that  gloss over changes in the sun to the point where it might as well erase them and put in a generic fudge factor instead.

 

e.g. polar vortex would never be understood  correctly without a good solar model

Edited by joeblast
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps i am extreme in my green-ness, in a few areas,  :blush:

i do prefer error on the side of caution environmentally wise

i am not arguing that natural forces are driving climate events

and it is apparent that man made influences are also effecting climate

 

here are some cool sand dunes on mars

https://www.yahoo.com/news/curiosity-rover-reveals-special-mars-173234712.html?nhp=1

 

here on earth we need to leave coal in the ground, stop fracking, continue to pursue greener alternatives

in fact bizness is driving the transition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps i am extreme in my green-ness, in a few areas,  :blush:

i do prefer error on the side of caution environmentally wise

i am not arguing that natural forces are driving climate events

and it is apparent that man made influences are also effecting climate

 

here are some cool sand dunes on mars

https://www.yahoo.com/news/curiosity-rover-reveals-special-mars-173234712.html?nhp=1

 

here on earth we need to leave coal in the ground, stop fracking, continue to pursue greener alternatives

in fact bizness is driving the transition

What you mean is people should be 'forced' to keep coal in the ground and stop fracking and be 'forced' to pursue the 'so called' greener alternatives.

 

Anyone who can find a way to fill their pockets at the expense of others by using the Government to enforce particular policies will do so.

 

Moar Government, moar Government, moar Government. :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps i am extreme in my green-ness, in a few areas,  :blush:

i do prefer error on the side of caution environmentally wise

i am not arguing that natural forces are driving climate events

and it is apparent that man made influences are also effecting climate

 

here are some cool sand dunes on mars

https://www.yahoo.com/news/curiosity-rover-reveals-special-mars-173234712.html?nhp=1

 

here on earth we need to leave coal in the ground, stop fracking, continue to pursue greener alternatives

in fact bizness is driving the transition

easy peasy, declassify all the stuff that the government stole from tesla

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2016 at 10:48 AM, Karl said:

Moar Government, moar Government, moar Government. :-/

Yup, what did government ever do for us, other then regulations that kept business from polluting our streams, rivers, lakes and airs.   We were where China is now.  Killer pollution, dark hazes, poisoned water that killed the young, the old and shortened life spans.  That was real in the Western world. 

 

Olde London had a night or two where dozens choked to death in there beds due to air pollution.  In the Midwest where I live a great lake, Lake Erie, one of the hugest depositories of fresh water in the world was declared dead and lifeless, even caught on fire.  Thankfully, due to regulations and restrictions its been turned around as have many local streams.  

 

Government regulation has done much to stop it.  Burning that coal in the ground releases 100's of pounds of heavy metals in the air, including mercury.  In my day autos ran on leaded gasoline, and IQ's along the highway and inner cities were lower because of it. 

 

I know you believe in unfettered business, but there are people who'll (indirectly) kill you to make a  profit.  They will lie about the destruction there industries do and won't be stopped with a petition.  We need intelligent government to put brakes on policies that hurt the general welfare. 

 

Greens like Zerotao may be against some polluting business's but they make for great ancestors.  I don't know about global warming.  Its a relatively new field, there is some hysteria on one side which is bad, and ignoring science on the other, which can be worse.  I'm sitting on the fence, seeing how well models conform to what we see.  The human time frame is very short compared to the models. 

 

Until we know more, to err on the side of solutions that do less harm to the environment seem to be a move in the right direction.  Coal is cheap, but are we quantifying the price of heavy metals it throws into the air and degradation in digging it out?  Civilization needs energy but we can be smart about it. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lesson in logic:

 

Nothing can be the cause of X in the absence of which X occurs.

 

Government existed when there was pollution, Government exists now when there is still pollution. To fulfill your argument there should be no pollution. As there is, then we can conclude that Government has been the cause.

 

That is indeed the case. The greatest polluters on planet Earth are Governments. This is true directy due to war making and practices-indeed the greatest user of fossil fuels on the planet is the US Army. Then we have Agent Orange-nice. We have subsidies for the growing of Maize and beef which has destroyed forests and farmland. In California there are droughts caused by subsidised irrigation which allows farmers to grow unsuitable crops. Then there are the nuclear, biological and chemical tests that have rendered vast tracts of land unsuitable for habitation. Not to mention the licenses handed to chemical companies to pollute 'by law' through the implementation of the rule that 'economic rights take precedence over any other rights'.

 

What about the recent release of highly polluted floodwater into a river by the Government authorities responsible for overseeing polluters- class eh? Seriously, I could go on and on with case after case of ruinous state policies and regulations to prevent legal responses to polluters.

 

All that is required is justice and law. Polluters are then prosecuted in a court of law to which everyone has equality. However, very few are successful in prosecuting Governments or the big businesses and vested interests that hide behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering we are very close to the end of a natural cycle of ice ages and warmings I think it should be obvious that the planet's global temperatures are going to be warmer and this is going to cause all sorts of climate changes.

 

As soon as the next ice age starts we all will be bitching about how cold and short our summers are becoming.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Karl, you don't understand or can't quantify how bad pollution used to be?  Are you somehow trying to justify all pollution because the U.S army is a big polluter?  So its okay?

 

Your side stepping the problems produced by generating energy by coal with logical gobblygook of Nothing can be the cause of X in the absence of which X occurs that's a very convenient way to say you don't know history. 

 

You seem to base your ideas on the last things you've read in the paper.  Like there was a bad spill in a river somewhere the world, that must mean pollution is getting worse. Silly.

Edited by thelerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Karl, you don't understand or can't quantify how bad pollution used to be?  Are you somehow trying to justify all pollution because the U.S army is a big polluter?  So its okay?

 

Your side stepping the problems produced by generating energy by coal with logical gobblygook of Nothing can be the cause of X in the absence of which X occurs that's a very convenient way to say you don't know history. 

 

You seem to base your ideas on the last things you've read in the paper.  Like there was a bad spill in a river somewhere the world, that must mean pollution is getting worse. Silly.

I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that far from being the great protector, the Government was actually a direct cause and benefactor. That the way to prevent unnecessary pollution is to use the law to prosecute polluters and compensate those who have suffered because of pollution. As I have said previously, the key cause of much of these issues is due to 'the tragedy of the commons'. When there is no ownership of the land/sea/air or when the Government is said to own it (which is the same thing), then these areas are effectively dumping grounds.

 

Where I picked up on the post about 'green energy' is the use of force implied in its adoption. This obsession with green energy is predicated on its apparently benign characteristics of not producing carbon dioxide. Co2 has become an evil gas, when it's the main component of our atmosphere.

 

It's fine to moralise about 'not burning coal' and certainly it would be a nice aim, but then virtually all solar panels are made in China from energy supplies from 'burning coal'. Many countries such as Africa have no grid system and require the burning of coal and oil for cooking, manufacturing and agriculture. Making steel requires the burning of coal to make coke. Many products are derived from the burning of coal directly in chemical plants.

 

So called 'green energy' -wind and solar-are not reliable sources of continuous power despite fudged figures to prove otherwise. The more we depend on no reliable sources, the greater the demand for intermittent gas powered generation. These gas plants are very inefficient, produce far more carbon dioxide than continuous generation. They are also have very short lives and this means costly building of replacements. All of that means greater consumption of material and resources giving a higher cost of power. Higher costs of power are reflected in goods prices and the cost of domestic energy. It means the poor suffer most.

 

A Government that is picking winners and losers distorts the market and innovation. In the UK wealthy land owners get massive incomes by allowing wind turbines to be installed on their land. The regulations even mean that optimally sized turbines are less attractive of subsidies and so smaller turbines with shorter life cycles are preferred. The cost of all of these subsidies falls on the ordinary person as taxation. The market distortions crowds out true innovation. Companies are essentially manufacturing to get hold of grants and income from Government taxation.

 

The Governments are unable to quantify Co2 costs, the scientists can't even agree on the effect of Co2 and their models have been consistently wrong. Instead of being a benefit, green technology has been a costly white elephant, as has all the electric vehicles, low energy light bulbs and higher efficiency motors.

 

If you wish to make the maximum use of resource with the minimum damage to the environment, then the answer is to get Government out of industry, privatise all land/ sea/air and use the law to prosecute those who 'trespass' through pollution.

 

Take our own EU. Because they wished to protect European motor manufacturers they hatched a plan to promote Diesel engines cars. These vehicles were banned in Japan and the USA (the biggest producers and consumers of cars at the time). As neither the US or Japan had a home market for diesels they struggled to compete against the internal market. Over time Europe became full of diesel vehicles because manufactures are writing all the regulations for the EU. Despite all the warnings and evidence of the health risk of diesel particulates we now have a continent full of the things. Then, when it began to be a concern, the manufacturers lobbied for pollution regulations that allowed them to make engines which seemed lower in emissions than they actually were. It wasn't that they fiddled the tests as some claim, it's that they wrote the test procedures and then produced a CPU which took advantage of those tests to produce lower emissions. Now, that there is a rise in respiratory problems-particularly in the old and children-they are thinking of how they can create a subsidised scheme to replace all the diesels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. looking at solutions that have worked to clean up polluted areas you don't see government regulations having a big effect? 

 

The problem is you assume Everything the government does is horrible.  You hold deeply to a stereotype.  The truth is, the government is a mixed bag, doing much good, and screwing up at times.  You can't admit there are times governments have faced and beaten nasty problems, like rampant choking pollution.  Your filter won't let you. 

 

You think diesel vehicles are banned in the U.S?  They're not.  let me spend 20 seconds to find out about japan.  Okay, I find the Japanese government is subsidizing 180,000 clean diesel vehicles.  They've made a huge resurgence in the past few years.  Do you ever fact check yourself? 

 

Looking at cities with the most pollution, you think, if only there were no regulations this would clean itself up?  Have any ever done any research on the most polluted cities, the causes and solutions?   How does clean up work in your imagination?  Some conglomerate buys say a square mile of the a city for 100 billion then what?  What do they do after spending that much money that will clean up the city? 

Edited by thelerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.. looking at solutions that have worked to clean up polluted areas you don't see government regulations having a big effect? 

 

The problem is you assume Everything the government does is horrible.  You hold deeply to a stereotype.  The truth is, the government is a mixed bag, doing much good, and screwing up at times.  You can't admit there are times governments have faced and beaten nasty problems, like rampant choking pollution.  Your filter won't let you. 

 

You think diesel vehicles are banned in the U.S?  They're not.  let me spend 20 seconds to find out about japan.  Okay, I find the Japanese government is subsidizing 180,000 clean diesel vehicles.  They've made a huge resurgence in the past few years.  Do you ever fact check yourself? 

 

Looking at cities with the most pollution, you think, if only there were no regulations this would clean itself up?  Have any ever done any research on the most polluted cities, the causes and solutions?   How does clean up work in your imagination?  Some conglomerate buys say a square mile of the a city for 100 billion then what?  What do they do after spending that much money that will clean up the city?

 

Oh I presume the Government has done some good things, it would be a real issue if they hadn't, but without the Government things would have been even better.

 

You can't check the facts, yeah you can look it up on wiki, but you won't discover the subsidies and minutia of regulations and taxation applied to products. Big business has always protected itself with regulations, that's what regulations are for, to give the manufacture an excuse for liability and to prevent competition. We didn't see this diesel push in the UK until 1990 when taxes, fuel prices and company car subsidies began to drive out petrol cars. These things are subtle, you won't see a big 'no diesels allowed' sign hung across US ports. Now, all manufacturers in both the US and Japan are making diesels, so it makes sense for manufacturers to lobby their respective governments to allow the sale in their home country.

 

I'm quite a petrol head so if this little detail goes over your head I apologise. The Japanese invented a clean air system for their cars which surpassed anything the US regulators had put in place for their catalysed cars. However, in order to sell Japanese cars in the USA they were forced to modify all their vehicles to take a catalytic converter anyway. That obviously meant a high cost for retooling, the cost of the cat and then an uncatalysed version for their home market. Fitting the cat reduces performance and fuel consumption, so it also added price to Japanese imports and affected the performance figures.

 

Why a conglomerate ? We live in individual houses. If I can sue my neighbour for harming my health then we can singularly or collectively sue a large business for the same thing.

 

I will dig out some information on cities and pollution, it's long left my memory banks, but I did some study on it. Governments were around when the pollution was around then they made claims for cleaning things up. I've found over the years that things had alread improved/ were improving before the Government regulated. As I was saying with the green power, the regulations and taxation are increasing pollution overall, consuming more resources and making people poorer.

 

I'm all for self regulation by trade organisation and of course laws to cover crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Civilization needs energy but we can be smart about it. 

 When the government subsidizes "science" geared towards "proving" a predetermined outcome with the intention of having an additional revenue stream to utilize, that is not "science" in the least.

 

If we're talking pollution, fine, I'm all for reducing pollution.  But anyone asserting that CO2 is pollution has fallen for propaganda based entirely off of statistical manglings and the modelings that utilize such techniques have zero predictive capability whatsoever.

 

Its not CO2 or human activity that made the jetstream dip beneath the equator, anyone asserting such poppycock is not interested in science at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great hearing that politicians actually did the right thing.  A truly commendable action.

 

But we are still allowing it in the USA.  And we know it has evil side effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

declassify Telsa's material already, we have no need for fracking

 

 

and the peat can be saved for scotch (not that I care for the stuff anyway)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of climate:

 

According to recorded data, last month was the hottest June on record.  Maybe not global warming but surely USA warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to giss-black-box-mangled data?  very mild june here.  I think that pile of garbage code is meant to give the hottest year on record, every year :rolleyes:

Edited by joeblast
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we need be cautious when considering such data to see it is linked to people with goals.

 

No doubt.  I recall a statistics professor who powerfully demonstrated how to manipulate and arrive at an intended answer to a statistical enquiry based on manipulation of sample group data.  All it really achieved for me, was a semi-permanent disregard for any statistical claims as my inherent mistrust speaks up and says... "well, those seem like very convincing numbers, but how pure is your sample group and who paid for your work?"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, in EVERY instance, the climate extremists have been proven wrong and in almost every instance, have been proven fraudulent.

 

Personally, I'm waiting for those "leaders" who tell us we need to respond to this crisis to act as if THEY really believe it is a crisis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, in EVERY instance, the climate extremists have been proven wrong and in almost every instance, have been proven fraudulent.

 

Personally, I'm waiting for those "leaders" who tell us we need to respond to this crisis to act as if THEY really believe it is a crisis.

 

Exactly who are the extremists? What data/evidence are you using to prove fraud? Science or emotional innuendo? Fraud is a very serious accusation and not to be taken lightly, but given that you are America's next great legal mind, I assume you already understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites