Hurricanes

[highfigh]

Keep in mind that there are billions if not trillions of dollars of interests on the side of man-made climate change being overblown / a hoax. One expects that companies like Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. can afford to pay at least as well as the government.

I agree. The question is whether or not we try to minimize future damage. As is, the Earth's population is growing; we've gone from about 4.5 billion to roughly 7.5 billion so far in my relatively short lifetime. You can project out how that will go by 2050 or 2100. That's a lot of mouths to feed, and a lot more consumers of basics like electricity and transportation. What happens if we sit with the data we have today and do diddly squat?

Remember when the first studies came out about the Ozone hole? Remember twenty years later, when they said "It appears to be cyclical, so we'll need to study it further"? They noticed something that hadn't been studied much and then reacted to it. I'm all for using natural materials that don't pollute- we don't need stuff that will take hundreds of years to break down in landfills (if it will even break down that soon). However, materials that break down over time often release CO2 and that means recycling can be better (as long as it doesn't create its own problems).

Regardless of when we start trying to reverse this, it's a bit late although pollution levels have been dropping since China started cleaning up. If the other countries would do more, I think it could help a lot to slow the temperature increase but one thing needs to be remembered- the increases are small, yet they make a difference.

 

[highfigh]

It would take more than that. In this video Kyle uses maths to figure out how big of a chunk of ice it would take to cool the earth.

And what did President Gore's head say when he started his keynote speech at the Kyoto Convention?

BTW- the volume of ice in the Antarctic is around 26.5 million Km- the ~30K Km needed for this video's solution wouldn't make a dent.

 

[Pogre]

And what did President Gore's head say when he started his keynote speech at the Kyoto Convention?

I don't care. Reading your posts tho, I think we agree more than disagree. And as far as ten year time spans, I posted links of ice core samples dating back 800,000 years. There is most definitely cause for alarm.

 

[highfigh]

I don't care. Reading your posts tho, I think we agree more than disagree. And as far as ten year time spans, I posted links of ice core samples dating back 800,000 years. There is most definitely cause for alarm.

I don't disagree but whatever happened 800K years ago is only academic- the population growth alone means humans didn't make much impact until relatively recently and around 5000 BCE, the planet had about 5 million people and no petrochemical fuels.

I only mentioned the speech on Futurama because the video used that show for its topic. He began with "When I invented the environment,....".

 

[Pogre]

I don't disagree but whatever happened 800K years ago is only academic- the population growth alone means humans didn't make much impact until relatively recently and around 5000 BCE, the planet had about 5 million people and no petrochemical fuels.

I only mentioned the speech on Futurama because the video used that show for its topic. He began with "When I invented the environment,....".

Lol. That one went over my head.

 

[gene]

The good and bad of CO2 is that it's heavier than air, so it's mainly present close to the Earth's surface. Bad, because we can't use so much of it and it causes warming, good because it can be used by plants and sequestered in the oceans. Eventually, the amount will decrease, but it will take a long time. If only the rain forests weren't being clear cut........

Cooler oceans prevents hurricanes from being as strong- maybe we could float some big icebergs to the Western coast of Africa.

RE: CO2 sinking to the ground
It doesn't quite work that way.

Here is a good explaination of why:
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.htmland
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jzzlj/if_co2_is_heavier_than_air_why_doesnt_it_all_sink/

You can't put a giant icecube off the west coast of Africa. For obvious reasons, it would be too massively big to have any sort of effect, so big we wouldn't be able to move it...

 

[gene]

The question that isn't being answered is "where, in the trend, is this ten year period?". Many trends last over a hundred years- if you pick the beginning, middle or end, you can't define what happened with any accuracy- it's like the saying about looking into a microscope and saying that you see an elephant. You can't define the climate by using a small sample.

Look at the graph for the Little Ice Age- if you choose 1640-1650 for your ten year sample, you could only conclude that the temperature was dropping but if you use 1655-1665, you would say it was unchanged. Wait until around 1720-1780 and you would know it was warming, but it's still not an accurate picture for the longer trend.

Look at the increase in World population- the number of people has quadrupled since 1920 and that includes the losses from wars & natural disasters.

Again it's the rate of change over a short period of time that is of concern. You also seem to agree that Earth is becoming overpopulated, thus implying we are using too many of Earth's resources and also polluting it in the process. I'd think you'd also agree that part of the Climate Change solution SHOULD also be birth control.

 

[highfigh]

Again it's the rate of change over a short period of time that is of concern. You also seem to agree that Earth is becoming overpopulated, thus implying we are using too many of Earth's resources and also polluting it in the process. I'd think you'd also agree that part of the Climate Change solution SHOULD also be birth control.

I think people who can't support children should wait until they can. If they never can, they need to see that having kids and not being able to provide good support is no way to raise children. I don't mean just in the US, either. I understand people who are subsistence farmers and they need people to work their plot, but impoverished nations need to do something about the population.

The agenda I mentioned before includes the cabal that has prevented better energy efficiency in gas engines and advancing other forms of alternative fuel for vehicles. If fleet vehicles were using CNG, E85/E100, or other fuels for local trips, it would help a lot, but part of the problem is that we're addicted to gasoline because it has very high energy density compared with many others. If I could have a cargo van that gets great mileage, I would drive one but it would never cost $6300, like the one I found. All I can do is make sure it's well-maintained and burns efficiently.

 

[everettT]

Boats good, house good. Still over 1/2 the county wo power though. As for the global warming talk, meh. Only 2 storms in the top 10 are from the 2k Era. I believe we contribute, but are in no way responsible for weather.

 

[rojo]

Good to see you back @gene. I hope you and Berta are both unscathed. Likewise for your Status Acoustics 8Ts. But mostly you and Berta.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think people who can't support children should wait until they can. If they never can, they need to see that having kids and not being able to provide good support is no way to raise children. I don't mean just in the US, either. I understand people who are subsistence farmers and they need people to work their plot, but impoverished nations need to do something about the population.

The agenda I mentioned before includes the cabal that has prevented better energy efficiency in gas engines and advancing other forms of alternative fuel for vehicles. If fleet vehicles were using CNG, E85/E100, or other fuels for local trips, it would help a lot, but part of the problem is that we're addicted to gasoline because it has very high energy density compared with many others. If I could have a cargo van that gets great mileage, I would drive one but it would never cost $6300, like the one I found. All I can do is make sure it's well-maintained and burns efficiently.

Strangely, it seems that the people reproducing at the highest rates are also emitting the least GNG's. However, I get and agree with your point that we need to control population growth - or good ol' Mother Nature will eventually do it for us.

We also need to watch out for the law of unintended consequences as we strive to reduce GNG emissions. If we replace fossil-fuelled cars entirely with electric, what are the environmental costs of extracting/processing/disposal of all those exotic heavy metals used in batteries? What will be the extra generating capacity required to charge them all and how will we generate it? Nuclear has well-known issues. Even hydro-electric isn't emission free; it often involves flooding of vast forest areas. This removes an equivalent area of natural CO2 absorption. Plus, the flooded areas often flush toxic heavy metals into water courses. It ain't simple...

 

[ATLAudio]

@highfigh

A few questions and observations...

“Ten years is not enough time for any kind of climate analysis”

This all depends on the scope and direction of the experiment.

“it's only good for observations in the short term because the changes that are noticed now were caused by something that happened before the sample period began. The climate doesn't react quickly enough for a ten year study to be valid.”

{Citation Needed}

Take this extreme example; if we nuked the planet with all available warheads we’d see a rather quick reaction. However, if we review the data from the last 400,000 years we see a quick response in global temperature to raises in CO2 and CH4; both of which have sky rocketed far higher than at any point within the scope of this study.

“Trends can continue for over a hundred years- what does ten years tell you in that case?”

That you’ll want to properly control your experiment against this variable. Do you find cause to believe this wasn’t or isn't the case? If all variables are totally controlled and obvious than you’ll be staring the answer in your face. Experiment is an endeavor to extrapolate from available data which is nearly always limited in some way.

“Look at the graph for the Little Ice Age- if you choose 1640-1650 for your ten year sample, you could only conclude that the temperature was dropping but if you use 1655-1665, you would say it was unchanged. Wait until around 1720-1780 and you would know it was warming, but it's still not an accurate picture for the longer trend.”

Are scientific models about anthropological climate change only using the last ten years of data to draw their conclusions?


PS
"When their career and income depend on their view being accepted, it's an agenda."

Stay away from this line of reasoning. Many folks have become incredibly wealthy because of the adoption of their discoveries and views that are supported to this day. Attack the idea on it's merits, not the size of their wallet.

 

[Steve81]

Strangely, it seems that the people reproducing at the highest rates are also emitting the least GNG's.

Yes and no. Let's take a couple examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Lets take China and India vs the US

China produces 29.5% of world emissions currently, at a rate of ~7.7 tons per person.
India produces 6.8% of world emissions, at a rate of ~1.9 tons per person.
The US produces 14.3% of world emissions, at a rate of ~16.1 tons per person.

Seems clear cut enough, but it ignores economic side of the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
The US leads the way in GDP with ~18.5 trillion dollars
Ignoring the EU, China is #2 at ~11.2 trillion dollars
India is substantially less, at ~2.3 trillion dollars

Doing the math, one finds that the Chinese are putting out double the carbon of the US, but have a significantly lower GDP. India produces roughly 1/2 of the carbon the US does, but its GDP is also 8 times less. IOW, for any given economic activity, the US is producing less carbon than either China or India.

Why does this matter? Because these countries aren't just sitting still, they're developing and ramping up their economies. If that increase is powered by fossil fuels, there's a much bigger problem than what exists today. Of course, you can consider the reverse: if only per capita emissions matter, there's a really simple solution to the US's problems; dramatically increase the population and force them to live in total squalor.

 

[Pogre]

Strangely, it seems that the people reproducing at the highest rates are also emitting the least GNG's. However, I get and agree with your point that we need to control population growth - or good ol' Mother Nature will eventually do it for us.

This is an interesting video on the population explosion and how it might play out. There's hope for humanity!

 

[highfigh]

Strangely, it seems that the people reproducing at the highest rates are also emitting the least GNG's. However, I get and agree with your point that we need to control population growth - or good ol' Mother Nature will eventually do it for us.

We also need to watch out for the law of unintended consequences as we strive to reduce GNG emissions. If we replace fossil-fuelled cars entirely with electric, what are the environmental costs of extracting/processing/disposal of all those exotic heavy metals used in batteries? What will be the extra generating capacity required to charge them all and how will we generate it? Nuclear has well-known issues. Even hydro-electric isn't emission free; it often involves flooding of vast forest areas. This removes an equivalent area of natural CO2 absorption. Plus, the flooded areas often flush toxic heavy metals into water courses. It ain't simple...

Hydro-electric fills mostly valleys, not flat land, so it's often causing less of an impact. Land without natural side boundaries allows for less increase in depth and containment is more of a problem than deep valleys, so the decrease in CO2 absorption capability is lower. Also, many places where dams were built had been settled previously, so some logging had been done.

There's no way to harvest or consume anything without a negative impact, but the best path is to limit whatever comes from our activities.

 

[TheWarrior]

There's no way to harvest or consume anything without a negative impact, but the best path is to limit whatever comes from our activities.

Glad to see we're all on the same page, here!

 

[ATLAudio]

Hydro-electric fills mostly valleys, not flat land, so it's often causing less of an impact. Land without natural side boundaries allows for less increase in depth and containment is more of a problem than deep valleys, so the decrease in CO2 absorption capability is lower. Also, many places where dams were built had been settled previously, so some logging had been done.

There's no way to harvest or consume anything without a negative impact, but the best path is to limit whatever comes from our activities.

Dams present a laundry list of issues for river ecosystems and food chains.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6zxhv7/the_only_thing_worse_than_a_florida_hurricane_is/

 

[panteragstk]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6zxhv7/the_only_thing_worse_than_a_florida_hurricane_is/

FFS seriously? Some of those HOA people need a hobby that doesn't consist of telling their neighbors what to do.

 

[Pogre]

I hate HOAs. We have one in our neighborhood too.