Climate Change

[capngeo]

I keep going BACK HERE in my thoughts....

When the Chicken Little folks start practicing what they preach, I'll pay them some attention! In fact, I'd bet that my "carbon footprint" is less than that of the average "greenie"..... in spite of the fact that I personally believe the whole Global Warming thing is fanciful hogwash.

IMHO, the "movement" is just a clever way for the governing class to generate more for themselves at our expense. Make no mistake, my smaller-than-average carbon footprint has nothing to do with environmentalism.... it is just my nature to not be wasteful; If I were wasteful, I'd need to work harder to provide for the waste.

So in the mean time, the vociferous harbingers of impending doom are just another voice to be ignored.... mostly because they are just parroting what the manipulators above them are selling (but not practicing).

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by capngeo

just a clever way for the governing class to generate more for themselves at our expense.

So in the mean time, the vociferous harbingers of impending doom are just another voice to be ignored.... mostly because they are just parroting what the manipulators above them are selling (but not practicing).

But they cannot be ignored. The problem is they manage to collect huge amounts of money preaching their BS. They use clever names such as Greenies, Sierra Club, Pergs, Union of Concerned Scientist....now that one is first class BS! Next they lobby, lobby and lobby to restrict carbon fuels that result in higher fuel costs. Consider California's Cap & Trade just coming on board and now Massachusetts... who relies on California to give hand signals so Massachusetts' nose does not get hurt...is attempting to pass similar laws.

They are like a cancer! The EPA forces oil companies to pay fines for not using NONEXISTENT cellulosic ethanol. Today gasoline usage is down while the EPA's ethanol use requirements continue to increase. Oil companies are fined for each gallon of mandated ethanol not used, costs that are passed onto customers.

These foolish EPA restrictions add cost to gasoline, which forces less consumption AND THE WACKIES SWIM IN JOY thinking they have helped preserve the atmosphere.

Make no mistake, they are a form of cancer!

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Quite right!

The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet's Surprising Future: Fred Pearce: 9780807001226: Amazon.com: Books

Seems his 2011 book is quite at odds with the recent UN predictions.

Not surprising since a couple of years ago the UN was making similar projections about population growth. However, their projections did not meet reality, thus the adjustment.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Or from your perspective 900 million people suffering from malnutrition is progress?

45 years after Paul Ehrlich published 'The Population Bomb' and has been definitively shown to be a humbug it is remarkable that he still has acolytes, but he does. You share his views, Conachair, and I wonder if you also shared in some of the predictions he made in 1970, to whit:

[I]"n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."

Or, in 1971: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

He was correct in predicting that Britain would have around 70 million people, and while they have been somewhat impoverished by 60 years of socialism they seem fairly well fed to me. Or do you see a lot of starvation in England that doesn't make the news cycle?

The fact that all doomsday scenarios built around too many people have so consistently proved incorrect, from starving billions to man made global warming should be a clue that your fundamental premises are flawed, but not so. Like the earlier reference to Cargo Cultists, GW fans continue to believe what they believe regardless of the data proving it all so much claptrap.

So there must be something else going on besides rational consideration of policy, since reason would lead one to reject everything about the "too many people using too much technology causing global warming" scam. Some think it's promotion of the leftist authoritarian control for the sake of power, and I suppose there must be some of that. But there is also a very dark undercurrent of misanthropy that leads the same people who think we'd all be better off if a few billion of us disappeared to treat the killing of unborn children as a virtue and the execution of Ted Bundy as a crime.

Beats me, but it is all rather weirdly psychotic, which is why proponents of 'over population' control and anthropogenic global warming are becoming more and more the laughing stocks they deserve to be.

[foolishsailor]

I would love to see a comparison of the financial statements of those crazy Greenie companies mentioned; Greenies, Sierra Club, Pergs, Union of Concerned Scientist and the conservative Oil and Gas Backed companies and "think tanks" such as those funded by the Koch Brothers.

What might also be a hoot would be to compare how these two sides of the spectrum have actually affected the average tax payer in the pocket. Hmm, lets start with the Gasoline subsidy, Drilling subsidy, tax credits, etc. that are all afforded to the Energy based industry and that we all pay for with our taxes compared to all the taxes and restrictions imposed by those loony "greenies".

I wonder how much lobby money has been raised by the Oil and Gas lobby to "encourage" the government to follow their guidelines versus the Greenies agenda. I bet those Ford Fiesta driving Oil, Gas and Energy Lobbyists can't stand it when they see those dirty hippy Sierra Club Greenies park their Mazeratti's in the best spots at the congressional parking lot.

[mausgras]

I just cannot understand people who readily accept scientific thought and discovery when it produces something they like but reject that same process as "undocumented dogmatic opinion" when it concludes something they don't like.

The most authoritative body studying climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. It has just published its 5th report after reviewing the work of hundreds of scientists and thousands of peer reviewed papers and it has unanimously concluded that climate change is real, it is happening now and at a rate faster than natural rates and is human induced.

But I guess that will still not change the minds of those that dismiss all that as "undocumented dogma" while at the same time happily checking their grib files while planning their next cruise.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Seems his 2011 book is quite at odds with the recent UN predictions.

Not surprising since a couple of years ago the UN was making similar projections about population growth. However, their projections did not meet reality, thus the adjustment.

My take away from the book is that there is a lag between current growth in population (1.1%) and the effect of current births on future births. China's population continues to grow, if slowly, but their birth rate is now below replacement, meaning that at some point in the next couple of decades there will be many fewer Chinese. If these trends continue into the future in the places where much of the population growth has come from in the past, we're going to see significant population declines, which will have a devastating effect on prosperity.

I'm not sure I would put much more faith in UN population models than I would their climate models, but time will tell.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by bstreep

I'm a PhD dropout in Molecular Genetics. I'm a dropout, because I quickly caught on to the "follow the money" in research.

Please review the attachment. The scientists at the time were actually advocating spreading coal dust on the icecaps, to slow down global cooling.

I'm betting that this is how, 20 years from now, we'll view today's climatologists.

I have just started a new business that will store carbon for 1000s of years and it will also stabalize the soil that has been depleted from over use,it will reduce the need for so much fertilizer by allowing it to remain in place rather than wash away,its a hot new business thats on the ground floor and going up,Its new here in the west but they have been doing it for thousands of years in South America,its called Terra Preta or Bio-char(Charcol) where I live, and its one of the new technologys that hopefully will change the world and slow or elimanate excess carbon from green house gases entering the atmosphere,google Bio char and join the revolution..This stuff is said to0 be a replacment for coke and coal ,it will produce crude oil,syngas,and gas that you can pour into your lawnmower and fuel it with,without any need for a refinery(the crude will have to be processed but the gas is a byproduct of Biochar at the end of the process and comes out clean enough to run as is..Bio Char is the future, and all this crazy mess going on in the middle east, we will soon wave good by to, as we ramp-up fracking and employ all this new tech to filter the atmosphere and clean up mother earth..You folks in England have probably heard of Biochar ,I am told you folks are at the forefront of this new industry..

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Delfin

My take away from the book is that there is a lag between current growth in population (1.1%) and the effect of current births on future births. China's population continues to grow, if slowly, but their birth rate is now below replacement, meaning that at some point in the next couple of decades there will be many fewer Chinese. If these trends continue into the future in the places where much of the population growth has come from in the past, we're going to see significant population declines, which will have a devastating effect on prosperity.

I'm not sure I would put much more faith in UN population models than I would their climate models, but time will tell.

My understanding is that after the"Black Death" spread across europe the folks that came after had more prosperity than the ones before the plauge,less people more opportunity!!..

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks FS. I would like to hear more about this kind of change. Someone mentioned how rapid climate change is no big deal b/c some places are now going to be warmer, and we can all sail the NW passage. The real point of climate change is that long-standing weather and climate patterns are changing -- and that is a big deal.

Sailors, particularly of small boats, make decisions all the time based on the predictability of seasonal weather. In a time of rapid climate change, how are sailors coping with the increasing unpredictability? What other windows have changed?

Jimmie Cornell's new sailing directions book was inspired, at least in part, by climate changes. Also by improved data collection techniques. But clearly Cornell, who knows something about sailing, consider climate change significant.

Another very interesting resource is Dr. Jennfer Francis, from Rutgers Institute of Marine and Coastal Science. The below link is of a long presentation she gave to some weathermen recently. She really concentrates on the changes in the Jet Stream and in its deviations or loops (Rossby waves.)

Atmospheric Rossby waves are giant meanders in high-altitude winds that are a major influence on weather.[1] They are not to be confused with oceanic Rossby waves, which move along the thermocline: that is, the boundary between the warm upper layer of the ocean and the cold deeper part of the ocean.

While she does not directly address sailing there is much there about how the wind patterns are changing in the North Atlantic.

Watch the whole thing. Part way through she uses a simple statistical example using cards. At the very end they return to that example, and ou get an idea of her view of the future.

This is good stuff, for sailors!

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 3, Dr. Jennifer Francis - YouTube

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by foggysail

But they cannot be ignored. The problem is they manage to collect huge amounts of money preaching their BS. They use clever names such as Greenies, Sierra Club, Pergs, Union of Concerned Scientist....now that one is first class BS! Next they lobby, lobby and lobby to restrict carbon fuels that result in higher fuel costs. Consider California's Cap & Trade just coming on board and now Massachusetts... who relies on California to give hand signals so Massachusetts' nose does not get hurt...is attempting to pass similar laws.

They are like a cancer! The EPA forces oil companies to pay fines for not using NONEXISTENT cellulosic ethanol. Today gasoline usage is down while the EPA's ethanol use requirements continue to increase. Oil companies are fined for each gallon of mandated ethanol not used, costs that are passed onto customers.

These foolish EPA restrictions add cost to gasoline, which forces less consumption AND THE WACKIES SWIM IN JOY thinking they have helped preserve the atmosphere.

Make no mistake, they are a form of cancer!

40' Silverton with twin crusaders.

Perhaps you have a stake in the game?

Unfortunately it is painfully easy to predict ones outlook on climate change simply by their demographic. And the folks who study such things find that the most ardent deniers are: well off, educated, home owners, older, male.

Where are you? Take the quiz.
KQED Climate Watch Survey | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

Full report.
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

(Actually, if you really want to understand the demographics you need to go to the 2011 report and then look at the methodology)

Really, you post is void of factual comment or even a reference to a relevant source. It is pure opinion.

And THAT is a fact.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mausgras

I just cannot understand people who readily accept scientific thought and discovery when it produces something they like but reject that same process as "undocumented dogmatic opinion" when it concludes something they don't like.

The most authoritative body studying climate change is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. It has just published its 5th report after reviewing the work of hundreds of scientists and thousands of peer reviewed papers and it has unanimously concluded that climate change is real, it is happening now and at a rate faster than natural rates and is human induced.

But I guess that will still not change the minds of those that dismiss all that as "undocumented dogma" while at the same time happily checking their grib files while planning their next cruise.

Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing cyclically for billions of years. You used to be able to grow grapes in Greenland and 1,000 years after that you could walk across the Hudson River on ice floes, neither of which conditions exist today. I don't need a UN panel to tell me that.

The reason why the UN IPCC is derided by many is because much of the data they used has been shown to have been jiggered, and the predictions made by their computer models have been shown to be false. That's probably why the nomenclature has shifted to "Climate Change", which everyone agrees happens from "Global Warming" that the data no longer supports.

If you really want to understand why there are so many skeptics on this subject, please spend a moment reconciling this article from Think Progress (left wing promoter of global warming) Scientists Predicted A Decade Ago Arctic Ice Loss Would Worsen Western Droughts. Is That Happening Already? | ThinkProgress

with the below graph showing the extent of Arctic ice formation this winter. If you have difficulty reconciling the opinions expressed in the first article with the data in the second, you'll understand that skeptics base their skepticism not on a rejection of science they don't want to believe in, but rather based on the data that shows the science they disagree with to be highly suspect.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by hpeer

40' Silverton with twin crusaders.

Perhaps you have a stake in the game?

Well, fortunately for Foggy, like predictions on the effects of CO2 on climate have proved to be bogus, so have predictions that we would run out of oil to power his Crusaders have also proved false. Each year, the world's recoverable hydrocarbon reserves increase as they will continue to do for quite some time. By the time we actually start running out of the stuff, Foggy's Crusaders will be powered by banana peels, just like in Back to the Future.

Originally Posted by hpeer

Unfortunately it is painfully easy to predict ones outlook on climate change simply by their demographic. And the folks who study such things find that the most ardent deniers are: well off, educated, home owners, older, male.

How true. Opponents of this latest justification for increased government taxation and control over our lives do tend to be better off, so have no stake in life lived in mediocrity at the government teat, are better educated and have learned how to discriminate between hype and fact, do own property and so have a stake in economic freedom, and are older and so were educated before public schools became factories producing ill educated numbskulls. Don't know about the male part, but maybe. Some women do tend to favor politics where government acts as a surrogate husband so that might also be true.

So I guess that means that those who support your thesis are primarily poor (food stamp and welfare recipients), ignorant, live in government housing are young and inexperienced and are female.

Thanks for clearing all that up.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

My understanding is that after the"Black Death" spread across europe the folks that came after had more prosperity than the ones before the plauge,less people more opportunity!!..

I seem to recall reading that as well. If memory serves, the survivors, who mostly all were living lifestyles equivalent to their farm animals took over the assets of the dead, and so were better off.

Not so sure we will find the same result in the modern world. Japan is instructive, perhaps. Modern medicine, improved hygiene and cultural/lifestyle/diet advantages made possible by prosperity have so increased longevity that the reduced number of young being born are being crushed by taxes to pay for great grandma's health care, and so will not be able to experience quite the same level of prosperity as their elders. The result is that these young can't afford to have children, or start having kids quite late in life, exacerbating the trend, hence the vicious nature of the problem.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I seem to recall reading that as well. If memory serves, the survivors, who mostly all were living lifestyles equivalent to their farm animals took over the assets of the dead, and so were better off.

Not so sure we will find the same result in the modern world. Japan is instructive, perhaps. Modern medicine, improved hygiene and cultural/lifestyle/diet advantages made possible by prosperity have so increased longevity that the reduced number of young being born are being crushed by taxes to pay for great grandma's health care, and so will not be able to experience quite the same level of prosperity as their elders. The result is that these young can't afford to have children, or start having kids quite late in life, exacerbating the trend, hence the vicious nature of the problem.

I don't suppose the nuclear plants leaking radioactive water into the sea will have any affect on the quality of life in Japan, eh? A perfect illustration of why nuclear energy is not the best solution. When we planning our energy future, it is folly to gauge which energy resource should be used simply on energy potential and cost. Renewable energy options may be more costly at the moment in terms of infrastructure and development - but in terms of quality of life and affect on our environment most renewable options win hands down.