The Environment Thread

[Wideleft]

28 minutes ago, Atomic said:

No point arguing with two people who sit there sharing articles that agree with their viewpoint and never investigate alternative views.  And then claim there is a scientific consensus, where there isn't one, by saying anyone who disagrees must be getting paid off by a corporation.

Please show me a prominent denier who hasn't been.  

And about that "no consensus thing - that is demonstrably false:

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Edited October 5, 2017 by Wideleft

[Mark F]

31 minutes ago, Atomic said:

sharing articles that agree with their viewpoint

Articles that agree with "My viewpoint"

Thanks for the compliment.  wish I was that smart.

The idea that releasing certain substances into the atmosphere would result in warming of the planet was established in the 19th century, has been confirmed repeatedly, and was

uncontroversial, until fossil fuel corps realized, that this could affect their bottom line. Suddenly, it was "unproved"

lol.

scientific American (1959 article)
 

Quote

 

The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun's energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal absorption band (13 to 17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum. When the carbon dioxide concentration is sufficiently high, even its weaker absorption bands become effective, and a greater amount of infrared radiation is absorbed [see chart on page 42]. Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere.

 

 

 

and also

Quote

LONDON — Ten of the world’s big oil companies, mainly from Europe, jointly acknowledged on Friday that their industry must help address global climate change and said that they agreed with the United Nations’ goals of limiting global warming.

including Aramco (saudi arabia)

I also agree, that it does not matter what I post, who from, when, where why. 

People who are by now,  unconvinced, will never be. The evidence is overwhelming, and is acknowledged by oil companies. apparently they are easily fooled too.

done with this.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Mark F

[Atomic]

You guys are so clueless.  Not once have I denied that humans are causing climate change.  But you are so hellbent on your crusade that you develop a strawman and argue against it.

Enjoy your high school educations.  I'm sure you have plenty of spare time to spend on the internet "learning the truth."   

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

You guys are so clueless.  Not once have I denied that humans are causing climate change.  But you are so hellbent on your crusade that you develop a strawman and argue against it.

Enjoy your high school educations.  I'm sure you have plenty of spare time to spend on the internet "learning the truth."   

Just going to leave this here:

https://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/

 

[Atomic]

30 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Just going to leave this here:

https://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/

 

An article from a hard left publication explaining why Liberal biases are correct and Conservative biases are incorrect.  Fascinating stuff.

[Wideleft]

10 minutes ago, Atomic said:

An article from a hard left publication explaining why Liberal biases are correct and Conservative biases are incorrect.  Fascinating stuff.

The fact that you are shooting the messengers rather than reviewing the studies by Pew and Yale would indicate the bias you apparently oppose.  Weren't you just saying how impressive your University education was?  This is Yale, man.

[pigseye]

Quote

The three hurricanes in the news in the US were Atlantic hurricanes, not Pacific hurricanes. The heat was in the eastern, tropical Pacific. And hurricanes don’t form near the equator, but farther poleward, while still however typically in the tropics. Subtropics are possible if the water is warm enough. Hurricanes originate from the difference between SST and air temperature, among other factors. Thus, warmer air temperature in the tropics should reduce not increase hurricanes. Tropical depressions typically start at night, when the differential is greatest. There is a threshold SST for tropical depression formation. Heating beyond that doesn’t make them more common. Much of the tropical ocean is always above the threshold, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

That's the science of hurricanes for dumby's.

[pigseye]

Quote

Well, while you are all arguing this point and/or that, remember that these are TENTHS of a degree, not whole degrees. There is a VAST difference between 3 TENTHS of a degree in any direction and 3 WHOLE degrees in any direction. I doubt seriously that anyone can detect a change of 3 TENTHS of a degree, up or down.
The constant exaggeration of TENTHs of a degree as HOT or COLD is acquiring the scary quality of an empty paper towel tube. It is not hot or cold. It is barely even WARM or COOL.
What it really is is nothing more than a difference so minute that you can’t detect it without some instrument to tell you about it. And then there are those “glitches”, which are special ways of saying “not the results I wanted, so I’m saying GLITCH”.
Oh, look!! WOLF!!!!

And the science of climate change for dumby's.

[sweep the leg]

19 minutes ago, pigseye said:

That's the science of hurricanes for dumby's.

Lol at spelling dummies incorrectly when insulting the intelligence of another person.

Sorry, I've interrupted. Carry on.

[blue_gold_84]

I always find it odd when someone posts a quote but won't bother posting the source. 

And what's a "dumby"...?

[pigseye]

bravo, now check out dumbys.org and you might get the rest of the joke.

They're not really quotes, just part of the joke although they do seem to sum things up wouldn't you agree?

[pigseye]

17 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

The irony of you trotting out scientists to prove your point that science is wrong- amazing...

You obviously missed the part about climate modellers, when they can predict weather with 100% accuracy (and not the current 48% historical average Environment Canada has) then we can discuss climate models because if you think they are 'science' then you have been mislead, they are predictions nothing more.

[SPuDS]

On 10/5/2017 at 9:41 AM, Wideleft said:

I'm ashamed that Tim Ball (Friends of Science) is from Winnipeg. 

Retired - Professor of Geography, University of Winnepeg
Senior Scientific Advisor, Friends of Science Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee, Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP)

Tim Ball was a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry funded Friends of Science, an organization well known for its climate skepticism and politically charged attack ads. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is also predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station, a climate denial website run by the PR firm DCI Group. 

Tin Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

 

money is the root of all evil.. who has the most money to throw around? Big Oil.

[bearpants]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:51 PM, Wideleft said:

You said that it's hard to believe it's 100% human caused which suggests that science/government etc. is suggesting it is.  I may have misunderstood you, but the inference is certainly there.  I can't believe this thread is 13 pages long.  The answer to the original question is Real.

I think we're on the same page here... my first post does appear to be a little ambiguous... sorry about that...

[Wideleft]

 

45 minutes ago, bearpants said:

I think we're on the same page here... my first post does appear to be a little ambiguous... sorry about that...

S'all good, man.

[Mark F]

meanwhile Goldman Sachs, investment Bank says

“Numerous key markets have reached an inflection point where renewables will have become the cheapest form of new power generation by 2020, a dynamic we see spreading to nearly every country we cover,” says Stephen Byrd, who leads coverage of North American power and utilities and clean energy industries, and has been watching developments in this sector for the past several decades."

This seismic shift toward renewable power will have significant effects on the performance and profit of the global power industry. “Utilities with deregulated power plants, which must compete to sell power, generally will experience greater upside if they are leaders in renewable energy development, and additional downside if they own large fleets of fossil and nuclear power plants in competitive markets with cheap renewable energy,” Byrd says."

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/solar-wind-renewable-energy-utilities

 

going to be a moo point very soon.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Mark F

[FrostyWinnipeg]

7 hours ago, Mark F said:

meanwhile Goldman Sachs, investment Bank says

“Numerous key markets have reached an inflection point where renewables will have become the cheapest form of new power generation by 2020, a dynamic we see spreading to nearly every country we cover,” says Stephen Byrd, who leads coverage of North American power and utilities and clean energy industries, and has been watching developments in this sector for the past several decades."

This seismic shift toward renewable power will have significant effects on the performance and profit of the global power industry. “Utilities with deregulated power plants, which must compete to sell power, generally will experience greater upside if they are leaders in renewable energy development, and additional downside if they own large fleets of fossil and nuclear power plants in competitive markets with cheap renewable energy,” Byrd says."

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/solar-wind-renewable-energy-utilities

 

going to be a moo point very soon.

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

Thank God Trump put an oil/coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA, now if he can just roll back car emissions we'll be all set!

'The war on coal is over:' Trump administration to terminate Obama's climate plan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trump-climate-plan-obama-1.4346580

Edited October 10, 2017 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[Mark F]

11 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Thank God Trump put an oil/coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA, now if he can just role back car emissions we'll be all set!

'The war on coal is over:' Trump administration to terminate Obama's climate plan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trump-climate-plan-obama-1.4346580

 

He probably owns a money losing coal mine.

 

[SPuDS]

On 10/10/2017 at 6:29 AM, Mark F said:

 

He probably owns a money losing coal mine.

 

of course he does.  I wouldn't doubt this in the least.

[Mama Fresco]

On 12/6/2015 at 10:44 PM, iso_55 said:

When Third World countries buy in, then I'll support it. 

Third world countries are not the countries causing most of the emissions.  Developed countries are by far the biggest contributors so must be the ones to create the solutions and find green ways of living and doing business.  Then the underdeveloped countries will adopt our green technologies and not our carbon based technologies.  Actually it is already happening on a small scale, when in very poor areas some solar panels are used to provide small amounts of electricity  eg. enough to light a lamp so children can study in the evening.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Real.

Thread now closed.

 

[Mark F]

18 hours ago, Mama Fresco said:

Third world countries are not the countries causing most of the emissions.  Developed countries are by far the biggest contributors so must be the ones to create the solutions and find green ways of living and doing business.

here's a satellite photo, that shows which countries are contributing the most. shows electrification. Pretty clear that Africa/S.America contribute almost nothing to ghg.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Mark F

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

here's a satellite photo, that shows which countries are contributing the most. shows electrification. Pretty clear that Africa/S.America contribute almost nothing to ghg.

I'm actually surprised how developed India is but I guess 1.3 billion people with a light or two each will do that.

[Mama Fresco]

8 hours ago, Mark F said:

here's a satellite photo, that shows which countries are contributing the most. shows electrification. Pretty clear that Africa/S.America contribute almost nothing to ghg.

Great map.    Thanks.