• Member Statistics

    15,626
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    hpolivereditor
    Newest Member
    hpolivereditor
    Joined
BuffaloWeather

Upstate/Eastern New York

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I was once a climate change denier. Go do a few months of research and come back. The climate is constantly changing, but the rate of warmth the earth has experienced in the last 100 years and the increase in CO2 (which warms the atmosphere) cannot happen naturally. I'm too lazy to explain it, but it's a fact humans are and have had a huge impact on our climate.

My $0.02...the data shows that sfc temps have warmed.  I don't think that's debatable. There are questions as to how much and concerns about data manipulation etc. but sfc has warmed a degree or two in last 100 yrs.  Why that's happened, is theoretical.  CO2 likely the biggest driver.   Likely.  Beyond that, and especially regarding "climate change" it's all speculation and a lot of bloviating.  Anyone familiar with measurement uncertainty theory and the application of it in engineering / science, should instinctively sense that there is a whole lot of blah blah blah being oversold or misrepresented as actual scientific facts, for a variety of reasons and by people (including scientists) who are out of their depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

My $0.02...the data shows that sfc temps have warmed.  I don't think that's debatable. There are questions as to how much and concerns about data manipulation etc. but sfc has warmed a degree or two in last 100 yrs.  Why that's happened, is theoretical.  CO2 likely the biggest driver.   Likely.  Beyond that, and especially regarding "climate change" it's all speculation and a lot of bloviating.  Anyone familiar with measurement uncertainty theory and the application of it in engineering / science, should instinctively sense that there is a whole lot of blah blah blah being oversold or misrepresented as actual scientific facts, for a variety of reasons and by people (including scientists) who are out of their depth.

Do you think scientists have any incentive to lie about the data and their research? They make pennies compared to what they could make in the private sector with phds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Do you think scientists have any incentive to lie about the data and their research? They make pennies compared to what they could make in the private sector with phds. 

For the most part no, with caveats.  There have been well founded concerns expressed about data manipulation in s couple of instances however, by certain scientists.  Having read both sides,  I still think that's an open question.  But the overall data, depending on your timeframe, show we have warmed in the industrial age.  I don't think that's debatable.  The literature on this subject over the past 30 years is however replete with examples of research that is directed in a particular way that doesn't always seem to rigorously conform with the scientific method.  And its peer reviewed, which is even more disturbing.   I think this is mainly a problem when you get further away from the climate guys and into peripheral subjects.  As far as making pennies compared to private industry, that's true.  But don't discount that in their world, continued access research funding is quite likely dependent on having the "right" conclusion to a study.  This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.   This isn't the first time where the politics inside of science distort, or are perceived to distort, conclusions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe. 

  • Weenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

2017Rochester_DaysAbove8520_OP_1_CP__1493075339846_20094037_ver1.0.jpg2017WarmSpringDays_rochester_en_title_lg_1493075346908_20094040_ver1.0.jpg

image.png

I believe that we are contributing to climate change but charts like these are garbage and in my opinion contribute to empowering denialists. The lines on the first two charts were placed arbitrarily, a linear regression on those might in fact slant downwards. The data was cherry picked as well. The third chart us of a metropolitan area that has sprawled over the past 140 years shown, of course the average temperature should be higher as metro areas are giant heat sinks. (id be curious to know how much this is contributing but don't dare say cities are bad for the environment). If you have to try selling something by manipulating data then it raises questions.

All that said we need to stop trying as hard to curb climate change and C)2 emmisions and instead start preparing for the consequences. This is because there is a real chance that either we cant stop the trend or the trend isn't man made. In wither case we will be better served by being ready. And while warming is bad, coming up with some sort of crazy aerosol/solar shield etc cooling plan that sends this earth back to a snowglobe is much much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tim123 said:

There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe. 

exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

 But don't discount that in their world, continued access research funding is quite likely dependent on having the "right" conclusion to a study.  

Sincerely curious, what is the evidence for this? We see pretty clearly that multiple federal agencies are burying studies that explain the effects of climate change and extrapolate results to the future. I have also seen meta analytical studies that identify significant methodological flaws with studies that contradict the AGW hypothesis (this is particularly good one here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5), but please direct me to methodologically sound studies rejecting AGW that have resulted in denial of access to research funding. I know David Evans claims retaliation -- notably, he is an electrical engineer, not a climatologist -- but he is certainly well-compensated by 501(3)(c) organizations funded by the fossil fuel industry, so the fact that someone with no special expertise is able to receive industry funding tends to argue against some sort of conspiracy against climate skeptic research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there were times in the past that were warmer, but it took many thousands or even millions of years to reach those temps.  The temp change in the last few hundred years is unprecedented when compared to the last few hundred thousand years.  We know that CO2 can raise temps so adding CO2 to an atmosphere that may or may not be warming will certainly accelerate any possible warming.  It's really hard to debate that adding "greenhouse" gasses doesn't increase temp.  Removing trillions of gallons of oil from deep within the earth and converting them into C02 is about as unnatural as it gets.  How anyone can dispute that is beyond me.

Also,  this gem from Tim is typical of snooty self centered Americans.  

"There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe."

That is a very easy attitude to have when you are living 500 feet above sea level in the richest country in the world.  Go talk to the millions dirt poor Southeast Asian and Bangledeshi residents and see if they feel the same way.  Climate change will certainly bring great misery and death to the worlds poorest.  But why would you care.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tim123 said:

There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe. 

Did human life, dependent upon climate-sensitive large scale agriculture, flourish? On the contrary, rapid changes in global temperature, ocean salinity, etc., have resulted in fairly catastrophic die-offs of entire clades of life. It's almost certain that up to the point where the planet becomes too hot or cold to even support extremophilic life that some forms of life will flourish in any climate scenario, but I'm interested in seeing human life thrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What confuses me is this: it's highly likely that rising temperatures will affect human existence significantly, and very expensive technology will be needed to mediate between climate pressures and what we consider a high quality of life. Technology exists that would replace most of the current level of energy consumption fairly easily, and significant research investment would close that gap. So who benefits from the status quo? Sadly, the answer is this: people with lots of money and power. Some of them make money off fossil fuel and related technology; others make money off money, through investments, and research whose benefits are 25 years away do not result in the short term yields that they seek. 

If you work in resource extraction, or are dependent upon it, I get why you would push an anti-AGW line. If you're rich and are seeking more short-term profit, again, I see why you would see pushing an anti-AGW line would be beneficial to your interests. But why would anyone else take such a short-sighted, high-risk position? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, WNash said:

What confuses me is this: it's highly likely that rising temperatures will affect human existence significantly, and very expensive technology will be needed to mediate between climate pressures and what we consider a high quality of life. Technology exists that would replace most of the current level of energy consumption fairly easily, and significant research investment would close that gap. So who benefits from the status quo? Sadly, the answer is this: people with lots of money and power. Some of them make money off fossil fuel and related technology; others make money off money, through investments, and research whose benefits are 25 years away do not result in the short term yields that they seek. 

If you work in resource extraction, or are dependent upon it, I get why you would push an anti-AGW line. If you're rich and are seeking more short-term profit, again, I see why you would see pushing an anti-AGW line would be beneficial to your interests. But why would anyone else take such a short-sighted, high-risk position? 

You're correct in that it comes down to money. Here's the issue though, if american government forced/subsidized every american person and company to be completely green rather than allowing it to become economically viable two things would happen. Our economy would collapse and the rest of the would continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere as their economies would likely collapse as well due to ours collapsing. We will become carbon neutral as technologies cheapen and as it becomes economically viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tim123 said:

There are periods in our climate that have been way warmer in past. and you know what happens life flourished. So even if there is warming its definitely not a omg we are all going to die thing as alot of politicians would have you believe. 

Not in human history. The worry is how rapidly the temps have increased. That part is unprecedented. 
What’s wrong with trying to curb pollution?

When I was a kid (early 80’s) I was sent to Boy Scout Camp in the Adirondacks. I loved to fish and was super excited. When I got there, it was explained that all the fish had died in the lake due to acid rain which was caused by the emissions from factories in Ohio, Pa and Michigan.  
The acid rain has stopped and the lakes have recovered but I always felt belching chemicals into the atmosphere was a bad idea. 
How is trying to reduce emissions a bad idea, no matter what your politics? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

You're correct in that it comes down to money. Here's the issue though, if american government forced/subsidized every american person and company to be completely green rather than allowing it to become economically viable two things would happen. Our economy would collapse and the rest of the would continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere as their economies would likely collapse as well due to ours collapsing. We will become carbon neutral as technologies cheapen and as it becomes economically viable.

There needs to be global change and the Paris accord was put into place to help initiate that process. One country won't have an effect on a global problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for being a steward of the planet. But this gloom and doom stuff is bs. Rapid changes in climate have happened for thousands of years humans adapted and moved on. Go back to 1700s climate was much colder then warmed then whent down again. Its climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth has always had an expiration date lol

We aren't here forever..

Watched a documentary not along ago about Mars being our "savior" lol

I think it had something to do with the alignment of the Earth and sun..

Anyways looks like we may have a mixed mess on our hands next week..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Luke_Mages said:

You're correct in that it comes down to money. Here's the issue though, if american government forced/subsidized every american person and company to be completely green rather than allowing it to become economically viable two things would happen. Our economy would collapse and the rest of the would continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere as their economies would likely collapse as well due to ours collapsing. We will become carbon neutral as technologies cheapen and as it becomes economically viable.

I'm sure there would be an affect on economic output in the US. This is a really simple analogy, but when an auto plant takes a unit offline for retooling, it lowers output in the short term. I'd argue that the feds are already spending the money -- we went from a fiscal surplus and a near zeroing out of the national debt about 20 years ago to around 20 trillion in debt and a huge fiscal deficit, and the main things that changed were that very rich people and corporations got enormous tax cuts, health care costs rose much higher than inflation, and we spent an unbelievable amount of money pursuing two very long wars. Had we not slashed taxes, had we capped health care cost growth, and had we not fought two long wars then maintained the same defense spending even after one of those wars ended, we would have had the money for GND-type research. At a short-term growth cost, sure, but since the benefits of economic growth have accrued mainly to very rich people (and I'm talking VERY rich people, not well-off middle class people), I'm not really sure what we would have sacrificed.

Technologies won't cheapen unless we invest significant R&D money -- much more than the market is spending. There is much more incentive to chase short-term profit, even if it offers no productive value. That's why a GND approach makes sense. You can argue against the social spending piece of the GND -- I would say it's essential to make up the short-term economic loss that will come from diminished productive capacity over the next couple of decades -- but the spending on research is essential, and we need to accept that some of that investment will be lost because not every idea works.

Your other point is solid, and totally accurate. It's why cooperative foreign policy and an approach to development that is internationalist (I know that word isn't politically correct nowadays) is necessary to fix this mess. The argument that it's hard to solve these problems isn't one that our grandchildren will appreciate.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

We're due for a mass extinction event, but the probability of one happening in our lifetime is so minuscule. I believe climate change and overpopulation will most likely be the next mass extinction event. 

 https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinctions

I agree, but now that I have a kid, I think more about exponential increase in the likelihood of extinction or even just social collapse over the next few generations. It's so avoidable, but it requires thinking and acting differently on a large scale (I'm not talking about straws or light bulbs or recycling), and that is understandably very threatening to people. It scares me, and I accept the science and agree that the likelihood of bad scenarios is increasing every decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tim123 said:

It's a United nations globalist propaganda hoax end of story. 

What benefit do they get from this hoax? I don't understand it. There is no money in this field, but loads of it in oil and gas. Superpacs give tons of money to candidates that would better benefit them. As you said earlier, follow the money trail.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tim123 said:

It's a United nations globalist propaganda hoax end of story. 

Tim, you can do better than this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WNash said:

Tim, you can do better than this. 

Actually he can't.  Have you seen his grammar and spelling and general thought process in this argument?  He's obviously very poorly educated and lacks any knowledge of the scientific method. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.