[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Yes. Humans are adverse to change. But, they change SLOWLY as illustrated by the example of the smog pollution of the 1930s in California. China and the US are the top polluters in the world. Therefore, I worry about their populations because it is simple - pollution increases directly with population. Therefore more CO2 production, which heats the planet.

Good point, I would point out that the US has 1/5 the population of China while the US produces over half as much pollution.

So, the population is contributing but not exclusive. I think and can't prove that a certain level of industrial revolution results in excessive pollution - we went through the industrial process in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

China is playing catchup. And is producing less pollution than we are per person because it has less industry per capita and a lower standard of living on average. China has committed to reducing pollution and is making progress; I have no idea if they are serious and will continue,

Most people in the US never worry about increasing population because the US has retained a mentality created by the historic frontier expansion and a mindset that "bigger is better". There is a historic Evangelical concept of "conquering the environment". I don't believe that I have ever heard the concept of population debated on TV - the subject is ignored.

Uh, yup, agree.

And just to nitpick, China's population density is 4 times that of us, so we could, theoretically, increase our population to 1.4 billion and be at the same density as China, But we have a MUCH higher standard of living which means each person has a larger carbon footprint that each person in China - on average..., reaching the same population density would be expected to produce about as much pollution as China with a lower total population.

[mtdjed]

This thread shows that Cliff Clavin from Cheers really existed, is alive and resides in The Villages. So much knowledge in one place!

"Well, you see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

That's a Fact and not Theory. Or is it the other way around?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

This thread shows that Cliff Clavin from Cheers really existed, is alive and resides in The Villages. So much knowledge in one place!

"Well, you see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine.

And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

That's a Fact and not Theory. Or is it the other way around?

Sigh. That is very a very ON TOPIC post and I guess is why so many of these climate change threads get closed.

It is as if all most people want to do is post-drive-by-one-liner posts about a very complex topic. And any time anyone attempts to post something about the topic, they get ridiculed.

It may well be time for another vacation. Too many here appear only to be interested in scoring burn points with "the guys. There is obviously no interest in actually discussing anything. People could post a thread on what makes a cat cute, and it would get closed in a few days.

I am unsure if I should do another suicide post orf just wait a few days and let the moderators do it for me.

I guess I could start a poll and see what everyone wants - LOL!

[BiPartisan]

Originally Posted by lpkruege1

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

And lake Bonneville covered the present state of Utah, and parts of ID, NV, and CO. The Lake convered 20,000 Sq miles and was 900 ft deep. Today we wonder why the Colorado River and Lake Mead are drying up. Did man have an affect on that? No man made influence affected Lake Bonneville, the extinction of the dinosaurs or the loss of the glaciers inthe the same States. So are we in Climate Cycles or Man Made Climate Change. Remember the most devastating hurricane was The Great Hurricane of 1780, 20,000 perished.

[tvbound]

From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, you think that by making rude insults you will encourage people to accept your view?

Do you have a degree in climatology? Where did you study and have you done any post-graduate work in the field? On that's right you are on the "common sense" side of the argument.


Please explain how electricity works?'
Please explain how a nuclear reactor works.
Please explain how a microwave oven works.

Please only use common sense - since you don't please people that have devoted their lives to studying the science behind why things work

And I am sure all the scientists have very low IQs and qualify as STUPID per your remarks

there is nothing rude or insulting in that. so try reading it with a non bias mind. Also if you want those explanations, that will have to be offline I'm not clogging up this board for your benefit.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by tvbound

From a very broad view, there are really two primary trains of thoughts on anthropogenic (human caused/contributed) climate change/warming.

1. Those who refuse to believe/try to manipulate/purposely obfuscate the science embraced by 90%+ of the world's legitimate scientists who are most educated on the subject, so that they are not inconvenienced in their current quality of life and bristle - at making any current sacrifice(s) for the future.

2. Those who actually care about the sustainability of the planet for their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren/Etc. and are willing to take action and make sacrifices NOW, to 'TRY' and reverse/slow down the adverse effects to our planet already occurring.


Since I can't even imagine being that selfish...count me being in the latter group.

And there it is! Finally, the climate change advocates have come to call those of us with a knowledge of paleoclimatology and some common sense "selfish". This must be the same crew that called people who didn't wear a mask when driving their car alone "selfish"

Manipulate/purposely obfuscate???? That 90% number has been debunked multiple times. And isn't it the climatologists who jump on the bandwagon to obtain grant money the ones who are "selfish"?

"Try to slow down the adverse effects"?---to the tune of bankrupting the world???? That would lead to consequences far worse than driving your SUV.

And anyone who thinks the peak of this cyclical warming is any closer than 15-25,000 years away----like the 12 years that was previously stated or even within the lifetimes of our grandchildren, well...........I can't write it.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The oceans ARE rising due to the melting of glaciers. Scientists have measured the rise for years and it is increasing at a frightening rate. The military knows that Annapolis will be underwater by about 2060. These are not theories. They are measurable FACTS. And can be easily looked up by anyone. We live in an information society.

Hmmm, did I say that the oceans are NOT rising, or did someone misinterpret what I said regarding it being impossible for man to change the action of the ocean rising?

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Daddymac

Global warming has started long ago. The earth has been warming up since the end of the ice age !! And that is a true fact..

But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

NASA ASSOCIATE climate scientist Kate Marvel

BA from UC Berkeley, Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge
Double majored in physics and astronomy, Ph.D. in theoretical physics

Note she does not have a degree in anything associated with Climatology. Her resume provides NO credentials that she has worked in the field or on the models.

Instead:

"I love my job because I get to study the best place in the universe. I use satellite observations of the climate system, reconstructions of past climate change, and the output of computer models of the climate to understand what is climate change actually like, and is it happening now?

It’s great because I get to work with so much data!"

What has been your biggest challenge, professional or personal, and how did you overcome it?

I would say switching into a totally new field. I didn’t have a background in Earth science at all, but I had the raw tools of physics and math

So, she is an associate (apprentice in other fields) with no background or formal training in the field. NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Her own words.

Yes, let's take her word over the 80% to 90% of the scientists that have extensive training and have spent their lives working in the field

Ahem...

This reminds me of the Vets and Podiatrists and Nurses giving recommendations and predictions on virology and the pandemic, I guess some people look for anything to support their preconceived notions and jump for joy when they find an exception that agrees.

I'm sure that most of the scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change would agree with that. The point, however, is that the descent of the slope is rapidly increasing.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

Here's the problem: Yes, temperatures have been rising since we have been keeping records, about 150 years. They go up and down , year to year, decade to decade, but overall have risen. What we don't know, however, is how many times in the last 4 million years (the time frame of our current ice age) that temperatures have risen just as quick, or even much quicker. Without a frame of reference, it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw conclusions one way or the other. It's like standing on the shore, looking at nothing but ocean on the horizon, but drawing conclusions as to how far away to the other side.

[banjobob]

OK we all agree the climate is changing , the major problem IF manmade, is not the United States . Look to China ,Russia,India and all other countries willfully polluting the globe and doing next nothing to control it. This country should stop trying to save the world.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

really, funny how we all seem to read what we want to see.



How is the Peak Oil theory is based on anything to do with Climate change and Climatologists?

The closest you can come is that Geophysicists are also scientists, so they are all wrong all the time (Dark Ages v2.0 theory)



This is actually about climate change. But a couple of points need clarifying:

No Climatologist working in that field said an ICE AGE would start in 10 years. Didn't happen. I was not going to take my time previously to dispute every one of these, but you brought it up as if there was anything here.

At the time, the early models predicted that in 10 to 20 years, we could reach what is called a tipping point in CO2 pollution. That means that we would reach a point where it would be too late to do anything to stop the progress. NO ONE said it would be an ice age. They said unless steps were taken, we would reach a point where an Ice Age would be UNSTOPPABLE. Remember that word; it will come up again below. At no point did they say how long it would take for the Ice Age to begin or how long it would last - there were a few "guesses," but even those predicted a long time - centuries.

Two things happened.

One of the models got better, and

Second, countries took actions that slowed down the problem. By 1987 enough countries were taking action that they formed what was called the Montreal Protocol. Which did not directly address climate change but formed a protocol for how they could work together to fix environmental issues - which are at the base of climate change.

So change began, not enough changes to fix the problem, but enough to slow it down a very small amount. A small change over ten years adds up. Combine more data and better models, and you get better theories that make better predictions.

At this point, the models agree that we have passed the predicted tipping point - i.e., the causes have reached the point that an ice age is now UNSTOPPABLE with current technology. The focus at this point is to slow the onset of the Ice Age long enough that scientists can find a method to stop or reverse the damage. Or to give God enough time to fix it for us - take your pick.




I don't want to go deep into this one; it is close to true, but not exactly; if you actually care, here is a document on what happened and why:

Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s

But I understand any scientist is wrong; they must all be wrong.



Another one. I know nothing I say will matter.

This is also based on an exaggeration of what was said, it is covered in the document linked above if you want to know, as opposed to just saying scientists are always wrong - I know, Dark Age v2.0.

Really? Oh, wait, what happened - Do you remember more big government regulations forcing worthless expensive regulations on us that made companies quit using Fluorocarbons, and the ozone cloud stopped shrinking? Darn, another win for the scientists.

You know those climate scientists that are always wrong, despite the apprentice scientist at NASA with NO training or experience that denies it all...



This is also wrong. The prediction of ice caps (actually ice sheets) melting was made in 1968. It was debated for a long time among scientists, few accepted the idea, back then:

It took a while for the idea to take hold. Advanced numerical ice-sheet models developed in the late 1980s tended to downplay the risk of rapid ice loss from western Antarctica, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested in its 1995 report that Antarctica as a whole was stable. But evidence to the contrary mounted: the massive Larsen A and B ice shelves collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively, followed by a major rift in Larsen C in 2017. In 2014, a team of scientists declared that the loss of ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment had accelerated and appeared “unstoppable”.

But still no consensus. Until around 2014. And even then, no date was assigned, only that it had progressed until it was not expected to be stoppable.

Here is the entire article in Nature magazine:

The scientist who predicted ice-sheet collapse — 50 years ago

So, thank you for proving my point. Most of that post was just plain wrong. Most were based on some truth, but they all said "WILL" and left off the "UNLESS:. See, scientists did just yell, end of the world; they yelled, "End of the World unless we prevent a nuclear holocaust. See the word "UNLESS." It kind of puts a different spin on what the scientists said/said. And gee, let's look back again briefly at what happened in every case where actions were taken, and the bad things were averted.

I was passing on this post because these are "memories" and provided NO actual documentation. Having been diagnosed with CRS (Can't Remember **** - the medical description is I am having difficulty forming long-term memories, more so than is normal for our age), I completely relate to misremembering things.

But, you wanted to throw it up as a definitive argument that scientists around the world are making the entire thing up so they can get free money, or they are just stupid, or politicians are forcing them to lie - or whatever the mole is that it popping its head up this week.,

I would LOVE to actually debate some actual data with anyone that actually believes this is all nonsense. But without exception, it hasn't happened. Lots of opinions, but not a post that I can remember with actual non-disputable facts or even a reasonable theory. And when someone does post something close to that, even if it is an opinion and not fact, and I do respond politely with comments to their post, it is just ignored, and more "The shots destroy your immune system" type posts follow.

There is no debate about the ice caps melting. You realize that the Arctic is now navigable. This has never been the case in recorded history. I saw an article in Forbes by a climate denier who was funded by a think tank at Stanford who correctly claimed the ice sheet in Antarctica had grown. However, this was quickly debunked because this was a thin layer of ice caused by the increased moisture in the atmosphere caused by warming temperatures in the ocean. The real problem is the melting of the icebergs and permafrost which have been growing at an increasing rate and contributing to rising sea levels which are the most serious in the southern hemisphere, especially the South Pacific.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon;2144957[B

]But not even close to how quickly the increasing temps have occurred since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.[/B] This is the key factor that your point fails to address. This has also been referenced by other posters, some of whom have made very compelling arguments and you should read them.

Scientists or stats suggest that temps increased since the "advent of the Industrial Revolution?" Can they prove that the industrial revolution caused the increasing in temps or can they just prove that the temps happen to rise and that there was an industrial revolution? I light a candle at 6am in the morning. At 7am the same morning the sun comes up and the temp rises. Did the candle make the temp warmer or did the natural rotation toward the sun make the temp rise?
Like I have said before, scientists make mistakes and then they flip and cover up their mistakes with scientific explanations. Not all scientists, but it does happen. Once an expert comes up with a theory, then many others jump on the band wagon. Just because many "experts" concur with one, does not make him/her right. Motivations make a difference also, as someone else said in an earlier post.
I don't support the Green New Deal. I have no intention of supporting the bankruptcy of our country, just to bankroll a fantasy. The only way man is going to control climate change is to build a huge dome over their environment where they can control the climate inside. Our world will change whether mankind is here or not. I agree that man can contribute to pollution and that can be remedied to a certain extent by lowering pollutants. I do not agree with some nuts idea of lowering the population of cattle to bring down the methane gas from flatulence.
Scientists have proven to us that plants thrive in CO2 and produce oxygen. Thank goodness we can't eliminate CO2.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by fcgiii

A total of 37 tropical cyclones have been estimated to have peaked as Category 5 since records began in 1924. There were 6 hurricanes in the 1930s and 6 since 2006, suggesting that they are not becoming more frequent over time.

The damage a hurricane produces depends on its strength and where it makes landfall. A Cat 5 hurricane that does not hit land does little damage. Hurricane Lorenzo in 2019 did little damage as it stayed out in the Atantic. Esther in 1961 stayed out in the Atlantic and when it finally made landfall in Canada t was only a tripical storm.

There is currently no consensus on how climate change will affect the overall frequency of tropical cyclones. A majority of climate models show a decreased frequency in future projections

Everything I have read agrees with your point on frequency. However, the problem is the increased intensity of the storms caused by the increased moisture due to the higher levels of CO2 that cause the warming of the ocean -- this is what we saw with Hurricane Ian.

Another point that I don't believe anyone addressed directly was the air quality problem caused by fossil fuels. This was a huge problem in China and which they are now working to fix. Also, in places like Salt Lake City, which has an inversion because of its topography, it has been exacerbated by the population explosion there and the overcrowded highways, causing it on one day in 2021 to have the worst air quality in the world. This is directly related to the exhaust from motor vehicles -- this was told to me by an EPA scientist.

So, as others have alluded to, overpopulation is a contributing factor to this issue.