Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2017   #61 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
This graph is a joke. It's not scientific at all. Made up by a couple of conservative christians who call themselves climatologists. Notice how it only goes back 4800 years, which is pretty insignificant in terms of the real age of the earth, but fits quite well into the 6000 year old conservative christian view of how old the earth is. These two are known as unreliable sources in the meteorological community.

Do you have a graph that shows that those periods of warming and cooling did not occur? Curious, as even my layman's knowledge of climate has led me to some bacic periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Even if the graph does not meet your scientific standards, it was posted for a very specific question (not for a college thesis), which no one has answered. The treaty calls for no more than a 2 degree C increase in "pre-industrial" levels. As you know, "pre-industrial" covers a lot of millions of years. So, which years(s) are we supposed to go with?
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017   #62 (permalink)
¡No mames güey!
 
roni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mérida, Yucatán
Posts: 75,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
This graph is a joke. It's not scientific at all. Made up by a couple of conservative christians who call themselves climatologists. Notice how it only goes back 4800 years, which is pretty insignificant in terms of the real age of the earth, but fits quite well into the 6000 year old conservative christian view of how old the earth is. These two are known as unreliable sources in the meteorological community.
We can't get everything right all the time

Last edited by roni; 06-01-2017 at 08:46 PM..
roni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2017   #63 (permalink)
añejo
 
MikeW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 14,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
Do you have a graph that shows that those periods of warming and cooling did not occur? Curious, as even my layman's knowledge of climate has led me to some bacic periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Even if the graph does not meet your scientific standards, it was posted for a very specific question (not for a college thesis), which no one has answered. The treaty calls for no more than a 2 degree C increase in "pre-industrial" levels. As you know, "pre-industrial" covers a lot of millions of years. So, which years(s) are we supposed to go with?
My bad, you don't care about whether man has anything to do with global warming or not. You care about the accord's definition of pre-industrial. Carry on.
MikeW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #64 (permalink)
añejo
 
Dan-0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,137
The Iron Lady was prophetic

Quote:
Global warming provides a marvelous excuse for global socialism. --Margaret Thatcher
Her leadership is sorely missed in Europe.
Dan-0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #65 (permalink)
añejo
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Playa del Carmen
Posts: 29,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-0 View Post
Her leadership is sorely missed in Europe.
Interesting that she was hated so much.
Babaloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #66 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,326
Has mankind's activities had an impact on global climate? Almost certainly. That is not arrogance to think that we do have some impact, based on all the crap we spew into the environment.

Can we realistically expect to be able to 'fix' it, with a world population that is still growing and a reliance on fossil fuels that is simply not going to 'go away'? That is maybe where the arrogance comes in.

The only real 'debate' is really how MUCH impact we have or have had, and what we truly can DO about it to help slow it down-if anything at all.

I've been called a climate 'denialist' (whatever that is- some people seem to think anyone mildly questioning this topic is automatically in the same group as anti-vaxxers or Young Earthers- patently ridiculous) but I don't deny it- it's real- I just question how much man really has impacted it, and what we truly can do, or are able to do.
Rissask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #67 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
My bad, you don't care about whether man has anything to do with global warming or not. You care about the accord's definition of pre-industrial. Carry on.
I care. Really. It just wasn't the point of the discussion that brought up the graph. Are you denying that these changes in climate occured? I get you don't like the source but there are plenty of other graphs showing more or less the same info. This one just happened to catch my eye because it had dates of volanic eruptions and the Settlement of Jamestown (my family lives there) on it. Do you have a graph that shows flatline temps throughout the history of man that only start to rise after man starts to burn fossil fuels? The point of "pre-industrial" temps as a baseline is kind of important to the whole idea of the Accords, right? I mean, if we can only turn the thermostat up 2 degrees, what is the starting point? What is the optimum median temp for the world? If we cannot answer that simple question, what good is the treaty?

No one is arguing whether it is a good idea to stop polluting the atmosphere. Lots of work being done to eliminate that problem without giving away our position in the world economy and reallocating wealth to other countries. The accords are so weak and nonsensical that I thought we should stay in them just to be able to say we were. I don't think it matters one iota that we are not in the Accords when it comes to who innovates the next generation of energy.
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #68 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babaloo View Post
Interesting that she was hated so much.
Interesting that some people think being liked is more important that doing what is right. Our last President was into that.
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #69 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,236
The new President of France has extended an invitation to Americans who want to work on climate change to come and live in his country. He says they will be welcome.

In related news, the US State Department is warning those interested in taking the President up on his offer not to travel in groups of more than 10 as the shock of seeing such a large group may cause entire cities and villages to wave the white flag of surrender.
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #70 (permalink)
¡No mames güey!
 
roni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mérida, Yucatán
Posts: 75,227
GOP senator: Healthcare deal unlikely this year | TheHill

Quote:
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C) says he doesn't think Congress is going to reach a deal to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

"It's unlikely that we will get a healthcare deal," Burr said in an interview with a North Carolina News station Thursday.

"I don't see a comprehensive healthcare plan this year."
Quote:
Burr indicated the Senate is looking for ways to stabilize the ObamaCare markets in the short term.
roni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #71 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
The new President of France has extended an invitation to Americans who want to work on climate change to come and live in his country. He says they will be welcome.

In related news, the US State Department is warning those interested in taking the President up on his offer not to travel in groups of more than 10 as the shock of seeing such a large group may cause entire cities and villages to wave the white flag of surrender.
Wow.

That's incredibly rude. Not to mention seemingly totally ignorant of what the French actually went through in WW2.

or was it 'just a joke'?
Rissask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #72 (permalink)
añejo
 
MikeW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 14,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
I care. Really. It just wasn't the point of the discussion that brought up the graph. Are you denying that these changes in climate occured? I get you don't like the source but there are plenty of other graphs showing more or less the same info. This one just happened to catch my eye because it had dates of volanic eruptions and the Settlement of Jamestown (my family lives there) on it. Do you have a graph that shows flatline temps throughout the history of man that only start to rise after man starts to burn fossil fuels? The point of "pre-industrial" temps as a baseline is kind of important to the whole idea of the Accords, right? I mean, if we can only turn the thermostat up 2 degrees, what is the starting point? What is the optimum median temp for the world? If we cannot answer that simple question, what good is the treaty?

No one is arguing whether it is a good idea to stop polluting the atmosphere. Lots of work being done to eliminate that problem without giving away our position in the world economy and reallocating wealth to other countries. The accords are so weak and nonsensical that I thought we should stay in them just to be able to say we were. I don't think it matters one iota that we are not in the Accords when it comes to who innovates the next generation of energy.
I think it is important that the US lead the world in the fight against man made climate change. 1st we are one of the leading emitters of CO2 per capita in the world. 2nd - we have established ourselves in the last 70 years as world leaders in many areas and the world looks to us for leadership.

Pre-Industrial - they are talking around 1880, before burning of fossil fuels became prevalent.

Reasons for global warming (pre-industrial):
- Change in reflectivity of the earth - amount of heat from the sun that reaches the earth or is reflected away
- Change in orbit of the earth around the sun
- CO2 change, due to volcanic activity

There have been other global climate changes in the past, however those were not due to human interference. There is a current global warming period occurring and it is not due to reasons of the past periods of global climate change. There is a very large increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years due to fossil fuel burning. The amount of "naturally" occurring CO2 and CO2 created by fossil fuel burning can be measured as the isotopes are different. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing during that same time period (but has only been measured since 1980).

There is a series of blogs written by Bill Chameides, who was the Dean of Duke's school of environment. That explains the current global warming in comparison to past global climate changes.

Part 1 - A 175 year old Puzzle

Part 2 - What Chemistry Tells Us

Part 3 - Causes of past Past Climate Change

Part 4 - Medieval Warming Period

Part 5 - The Only Explanation Left
MikeW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #73 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayadelSolDos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
I think it is important that the US lead the world in the fight against man made climate change. 1st we are one of the leading emitters of CO2 per capita in the world. 2nd - we have established ourselves in the last 70 years as world leaders in many areas and the world looks to us for leadership.
I have no problem with the US leading the charge to find cleaner and cheaper forms of energy. We are one of the #1 emitters because we do more. The reason we lead is because we do more and doing more takes more energy.

Quote:
Pre-Industrial - they are talking around 1880, before burning of fossil fuels became prevalent.
I get lost here because during that time, there was a variance in mean or median temperatures, right? How do we know that those temps are the ideal temps for the planet, when the planet is not even sure. Can you help me understand this? Serious inquiry.

Quote:
here have been other global climate changes in the past, however those were not due to human interference. There is a current global warming period occurring and it is not due to reasons of the past periods of global climate change. There is a very large increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years due to fossil fuel burning. The amount of "naturally" occurring CO2 and CO2 created by fossil fuel burning can be measured as the isotopes are different. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is decreasing during that same time period (but has only been measured since 1980).
And huge swings. My question goes back to the one above. Man's contribution of CO2 pales in comparison to other sources. What is the appropriate amount to emit and how is that number reached?

I will look at the blog entries later, as I am at work now. But I promise to check them out because I respect you and your time.

Last edited by PlayadelSolDos; 06-02-2017 at 11:18 AM..
PlayadelSolDos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #74 (permalink)
añejo
 
MikeW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moorpark, CA
Posts: 14,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSolDos View Post
...

I get lost here because during that time, there was a variance in mean or median temperatures, right? How do we know that those temps are the ideal temps for the planet, when the planet is not even sure. Can you help me understand this? Serious inquiry.
...
I don't think we care about ideal temps for the planet as the global temps of the planet has changed over millions of years for one reason or combined reasons. Humans have introduced a new reason in the last 100+ years. What if there is quick swing due to a non-human event while at the same time human activity has raised the global temps by a few degrees? What happens, does the global temp go up another few degrees on top of the human caused reason? If it does add up (i.e Human 2 degrees, natural event 2 degrees for a total of 4 degrees), what happens to the planet? What are the long term effects of a 2 or 4 degree change to humans?

Since the change in CO2 emissions and rise in temperatures has happened quickly - try to get back to the temperature and CO2 output before the burning of fossil fuels. You can't stop the natural events that create climate change, but you can control human sources of climate change.

Long term effects - just guessing:
Global meteorological changes. Where we once had farm land, we now have deserts. Where we once had cities along the coast, we now have the ocean. Arctic passage. Wars due to land drying up and the need to find new land for farming. Wars over water.

Short term effects:
Drying up the forests in California. Leads to infestations. More thunderstorms in the forests. Leads to more forest fires. Water shortages. More times spent indoors running AC - which requires more energy. Local flooding. Weather patterns changing globally.
MikeW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017   #75 (permalink)
¡No mames güey!
 
roni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mérida, Yucatán
Posts: 75,227
Trump's backward withdrawal from the Paris accord has very little support among states and corporations - and could do more to endanger US jobs than to support them



Quote:
Thirty states and scores of companies
Quote:
said Thursday that they would press ahead with their climate policies and pursue lower greenhouse gas emissions, breaking sharply with President Trump’s decision to exit the historic Paris climate accord.
Quote:
The Trump administration’s decision to exit the landmark climate agreement will damage America’s international standing on climate issues and make it nearly impossible for the world to reach internationally agreed goals of limiting global warming, officials said.

Elon Musk, chief executive of Tesla, and Robert Iger, chief executive of Disney, both resigned from the president’s advisory council after the announcement. Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, tweeted that Trump’s decision “is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.’s leadership position in the world.”

But the action comes well after many corporate board rooms and state capitols had adopted climate change as a given, officials and executives said.
roni is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.