The Environment Thread

[kelownabomberfan]

Just now, Mark H. said:

Denying climate change is the same thing.  In both cases, one can make arguments that they are inconclusive - because they both are.  

Do you mean "man-made climate change"? Or just natural climate change?

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Denying climate change is the same thing.  In both cases, one can make arguments that they are inconclusive - because they both are.  

I would agree with you if you are talking about man-made climate change. The research is still very inconclusive. Evolution has much more scientific support behind it given it has been a thing for much much longer.

[Mark F]

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

[kelownabomberfan]

3 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

So this proves that the man-made climate change hypothesis has the exact same amount of scientific support as evolution? Really?

[Mark F]

read your own prior post.

[pigseye]

3 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

SOrry- I need a road map, would you be so kind as providing me with a roadmap please?

In your own words please and not some ambiguous statement followed by a quote with zero explanation. 

I will try to keep this as simple as possible for you then.

Our current system is a centralized energy monopoly(fossil fuel companies) but this is slowly starting to change with deregulation allowing decentralized starts ups of clean energy alternatives to get into the market, ie you can buy your power from wind farms or put your own solar panels on your roof. This is basically about getting a slice of the biggest economic pie. Of course the far lefties think that some day soon, they will be able to generate their own energy for free, good luck with that. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

56 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I will try to keep this as simple as possible for you then.

Our current system is a centralized energy monopoly(fossil fuel companies) but this is slowly starting to change with deregulation allowing decentralized starts ups of clean energy alternatives to get into the market, ie you can buy your power from wind farms or put your own solar panels on your roof. This is basically about getting a slice of the biggest economic pie. Of course the far lefties think that some day soon, they will be able to generate their own energy for free, good luck with that. 

Ok... so what does this have to do with Anastasios Tsonis?

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I would agree with you if you are talking about man-made climate change. The research is still very inconclusive. Evolution has much more scientific support behind it given it has been a thing for much much longer.

I know. If you go back far enough in evolution, you have more questions that answers.  Especially the question: who started all this?

However, that isn't a reason to not see evolution as a possibility at the very least.  It's the same thing with man made climate change.  It's questionable - but there are no valid reasons to believe that human beings are not having an impact on the climate of the planet. 

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

It's the same thing with man made climate change.  It's questionable - but there are no valid reasons to believe that human beings are not having an impact on the climate of the planet. 

I sorta of agree with you except for the "no valid reasons" part, the debate between the two sides has been raging for what 30 years now, with no end in sight. In fact I see more research papers today poking holes in the theory than I used to. As technology changes rapidly I expect to see even more or at least better model projections, some that actually get it right for a change would be nice. Since 2001, not a single model projection got anything right, they all totally over-estimated the warming, only in the last 3 years with the super el ninos have the models been even remotely close. I just saw another new paper today currently in the peer review phase which confirms that the IPCC's 1.85 C for a doubling of CO2 is too high, the value is closer to 1.35C and they wonder why their models have been over-estimating the warming? There's reason people call it psuedo-science. 

[pigseye]

2 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Ok... so what does this have to do with Anastasios Tsonis?

Greens couldn't break the energy monopoly without government deregulation and government wasn't going to do it without the support of the public. So you cook up a doomsday scenario to get the public demanding change then government has to act, which they did, and greens get their foot in the energy door. Tsonis flipped sides because he couldn't stomach the tactics scientists were using to get this done. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Greens couldn't break the energy monopoly without government deregulation and government wasn't going to do it without the support of the public. So you cook up a doomsday scenario to get the public demanding change then government has to act, which they did, and greens get their foot in the energy door. 

So... Man-made Global Warming is a cooked up scenario? It's not. It's fact. Whether or not you believe it, doesn't change that fact. 

 

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Tsonis flipped sides because he couldn't stomach the tactics scientists were using to get this done. 

Interesting- I would love to see your source on his reasoning. 

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

I sorta of agree with you except for the "no valid reasons" part, the debate between the two sides has been raging for what 30 years now, with no end in sight. In fact I see more research papers today poking holes in the theory than I used to. As technology changes rapidly I expect to see even more or at least better model projections, some that actually get it right for a change would be nice. Since 2001, not a single model projection got anything right, they all totally over-estimated the warming, only in the last 3 years with the super el ninos have the models been even remotely close. I just saw another new paper today currently in the peer review phase which confirms that the IPCC's 1.85 C for a doubling of CO2 is too high, the value is closer to 1.35C and they wonder why their models have been over-estimating the warming? There's reason people call it psuedo-science. 

You don't understand what climate models are used for. feel free to google it and brush up on them. or don't - your prerogative. 

[alexsurk]

The past decade has featured both record high and low water levels. When it rains, it often rains harder and longer, with higher incidents of flash flooding, especially in our cities.   Donate to Syria

[Wideleft]

Interesting stuff. 

"Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate.

That's the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.

The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.

This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet."

 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973?fbclid=IwAR042v7GsB61BR9hTX1Fe8jPoCHGblZIDJ_B1y2AP4vQYUYOmsKohhwf45I

[kelownabomberfan]

5 hours ago, alexsurk said:

The past decade has featured both record high and low water levels. When it rains, it often rains harder and longer, with higher incidents of flash flooding, especially in our cities.   Donate to Syria

Record high compared to what? How long has mankind been keeping reliable records? How long has mankind existed?

[kelownabomberfan]

13 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

So... Man-made Global Warming is a cooked up scenario? It's not. It's fact. Whether or not you believe it, doesn't change that fact. 

I don't think its "cooked up". That would be over-simplistic and disingenous. It is obvious that there were a lot of shysters that cooked up doomsday apocalyptic scenarios ( like Al Gore) who grew fat literally and their wallets fat thanks to rivers of public money being diverted straight into their pockets. The bankruptcy of Solyndra remains a huge stain on the Obama presidency. 

13 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

 

 

[Goalie]

Heres the thing... If we can all do our part by recycling or not burning plastics and rubber and all sorts of things.. Maybe drive less if we can.. Don't need to always drive to the corner store... Why wouldn't we? 

Is global warming real? Yes without a doubt. Is it as dire as they make it seem? Prob not. 

But.. Thats really all irrelevant isnt it? If we can all make the planet a better place by doing simple things like recycling or not burning stupid ****.. Why wouldn't we? 

[Goalie]

They make it tough tho.. We are doing an addition on our cabin this spring... We have been looking to go green a bit.. Use more enviro friendly wood and insulation and etc... 

Thing is... It costs almost double. 

So... For as much as they want ppl to use sustainable resources like green wood or bluewood or recycled wood or hemp insulstion or what they call blue jean insulation.. Making it affordable would help. 

[kelownabomberfan]

36 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Heres the thing... If we can all do our part by recycling or not burning plastics and rubber and all sorts of things.. Maybe drive less if we can.. Don't need to always drive to the corner store... Why wouldn't we? 

Is global warming real? Yes without a doubt. Is it as dire as they make it seem? Prob not. 

But.. Thats really all irrelevant isnt it? If we can all make the planet a better place by doing simple things like recycling or not burning stupid ****.. Why wouldn't we? 

Fine by me. 

[Wideleft]

58 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Heres the thing... If we can all do our part by recycling or not burning plastics and rubber and all sorts of things.. Maybe drive less if we can.. Don't need to always drive to the corner store... Why wouldn't we? 

Is global warming real? Yes without a doubt. Is it as dire as they make it seem? Prob not. 

But.. Thats really all irrelevant isnt it? If we can all make the planet a better place by doing simple things like recycling or not burning stupid ****.. Why wouldn't we? 

You'll have to define dire, then.  If you had a house in Paradise, California, it's past dire.  If you're tourist operator on the Great Barrier Reef, it's past dire. If you're a Syrian, it's past dire.  If you're have contractd Lyme disease in Canada, it's past dire.  Climate change is not as simple as a 5 degree bump on any given day.  There are so many indirect dire consequences of a warming planet that we are just beginning to realize it's past effects - nevermind the ones we are struggling to predict.

[Wideleft]

59 minutes ago, Goalie said:

They make it tough tho.. We are doing an addition on our cabin this spring... We have been looking to go green a bit.. Use more enviro friendly wood and insulation and etc... 

Thing is... It costs almost double. 

So... For as much as they want ppl to use sustainable resources like green wood or bluewood or recycled wood or hemp insulstion or what they call blue jean insulation.. Making it affordable would help. 

This is why governments need to encourage demand for this supply by providing rebates or tax incentives to participate.  When manufacturers scale up, we'll see prices drop - solar panels are a good example (even though they still need to get cheaper).

The oil, gas and coal industries have been heavily subsidized for a century - no reason it can't be done for green tech.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

The oil, gas and coal industries have been heavily subsidized for a century - no reason it can't be done for green tech.

So much this. 

 

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, Goalie said:

Heres the thing... If we can all do our part by recycling or not burning plastics and rubber and all sorts of things.. Maybe drive less if we can.. Don't need to always drive to the corner store... Why wouldn't we? 

Is global warming real? Yes without a doubt. Is it as dire as they make it seem? Prob not. 

But.. Thats really all irrelevant isnt it? If we can all make the planet a better place by doing simple things like recycling or not burning stupid ****.. Why wouldn't we? 

Fine by me too. 

[pigseye]

16 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

The oil, gas and coal industries have been heavily subsidized for a century - no reason it can't be done for green tech

In Canada alone, 624,000 jobs, 11% of GDP, $10.3 billion in revenues, $650 million in R&D and you ask why the industry is subsidized? Compare that to Bombardier or the SO auto sector and ask why those industries are subsidized. Clean energy is being subsidized, that's the only thing that got it off the ground in the first place, however, if your goal was to simply reduce emissions, you could have invested a lot less in nuclear and hydro-electric and already solved the emissions problem. 

[kelownabomberfan]

41 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

You'll have to define dire, then.  If you had a house in Paradise, California, it's past dire.  If you're tourist operator on the Great Barrier Reef, it's past dire. If you're a Syrian, it's past dire.  If you're have contractd Lyme disease in Canada, it's past dire.  Climate change is not as simple as a 5 degree bump on any given day.  There are so many indirect dire consequences of a warming planet that we are just beginning to realize it's past effects - nevermind the ones we are struggling to predict.

No idea what any of this has to do with the man-made climate change hypothesis? Especially Syria?