Nails it over the hysteria and untested science/solutions.
Especially nails the UN part.
OT: Record-high ocean temperatures to make hurricane season more active
- Thread starter Morrischiano2
- Start date
- Status
Especially nails the UN part.
Like in the 80s when everyone was trumpeting a worldwide freeze ?
So how, in your opinion, should we be responding to rapidly rising ocean temps and the destruction of critical habitat?
LBI water has been crazy. 3 weeks ago it was 77. Awesome. Following week 60. Crazy
We should take an honest look at our low laying areas in the USA that are suspect and build thirty to forty year remediation plans if we are positive the trend will continue.
USA first.
Then assess the most vulnerable countries internationally and what remediation would cost and split that cost with the wealthiest nations including China & India.
The current plans by the UN are completely unworkable. And the UN is unreliable and fraudulent.
Deal with it from a power position as the leading producer of energy in the world who has a plan to use that energy and drive our thriving economy while we explore and ease into alternative energies including an all out quest for recapture and re-use of emissions from combustion engines.
There was never a time when "everyone" was trumpeting a worldwide freeze. There was, however, a brief period where there was a slight dip in global temperatures. That was real apparently.
In the 90s, climate scientists/activists were saying NYC would be underwater by now. LOL!
The whole "but we were told there was going to be an ice age" trope is stupid and is the equivalent of having "intellectually dishonest" tattooed on your forehead.
First of all, it wasn't "the 80s", so @NorthernKnight fails there in his recollection.
It was precisely 1 article, written for Newsweek by then science editor Peter Gwynne. Gwynne's point was that there was an observed dip in global average temperatures from 1940 onward. He attributed that dip on global temperatures to the pervasive use of aerosols.
Funny thing - at the time, there was still sufficient trust in scientific observation that the countries of the world got together and banned the production and use of CFC-based aerosols.
The climate change deniers still cling to that one, weak thread, though. They love quoting articles (such as the "Washington Examiner" piece that NK quoted, above) that recycle the same story but omit all of the relevant details.
First of all, it wasn't "the 80s", so @NorthernKnight fails there in his recollection.
It was precisely 1 article, written for Newsweek by then science editor Peter Gwynne. Gwynne's point was that there was an observed dip in global average temperatures from 1940 onward. He attributed that dip on global temperatures to the pervasive use of aerosols.
Funny thing - at the time, there was still sufficient trust in scientific observation that the countries of the world got together and banned the production and use of CFC-based aerosols.
The climate change deniers still cling to that one, weak thread, though. They love quoting articles (such as the "Washington Examiner" piece that NK quoted, above) that recycle the same story but omit all of the relevant details.
Meanwhile, the GOP can make one wrong prediction after another--remember how Clinton's tax increase was going to cause the mother of all recessions? when we actually got the biggest economic boom in 30 years--yet their faith is never shaken.
You’ve wished death on 3 fellow Rutgers fans today and it’s only 5pm.
Question to others , is this normal rhetoric on this forum or is this individual just a sick person?
The Washington Examiner is a joke of a "newspaper" created by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his cult of Moonies.
Pure comedy.
He is getting angry and unbalanced as he enters his golden years! He used to be a stable genius. LOL!
NK is right on his posts about the global cooling scare. But when that never happened, Big Science needed a new crisis to generate grant money. So in the late 80s and early 90s, the IPCC and nuts like James Hanson pivoted and it became all about warming. Those early predictions were hysterical! Most of Manhattan should be underwater by now.
Trump broke him at some point in 2016 and there was no looking bac after that
I am hoping this forum isn’t divided by political party
Sports talk is better when forum members can compartmentalize and not hold grudges
That real guy will stroke out if he continues to get so burned up about the opinions of others.
first off, welcome aboard....and welcome aboard to CE, you will be a welcome addition
During off season there is some rough back and forth but once we get into the season, both boards are fully concentrated on the sports. Pretty much most of the time, grudges get pushed aside and less off topic for people to stray.
There are definite partisan groups but ironically they reorganize over the issue of Schiano. Some guys who disagree on everything politically totally agree on the coach and form new sides.
I don't mind opinion.
I do mind the distortion of fact.
And you can sit there and play "gee, I wish people wouldn't be so political" all you want, but your last half dozen posts are about as transparently partisan as they could be.
You're not really fooling anyone.
Tell ya what - I'll put you on "Ignore", you do the same for me and all will be right with the world, ya know?
Cuz frankly, I'm not interested in your "analysis".
thats what is great about the board. I would say 99.9% of the time when things stay on topic with sports people do not bring the grudges from the other **** discussed here
this is from 2009....Watts exposed Hansen who made this prediction I believe in 1988...he has 5 years to go
So a couple of things.
First, the Watts blog is 14 years old. Saying that we hadn't seen, 14 years ago, sea level rise that was anticipated over a 40 year period is kind of a weird flex, don't you think?
We're absolutely seeing sea level rise. I also think a lot of people are struggling to interpret data and separate it from some of the more alarmist hyperbole.
I don't think anyone reasonable is saying that we're going to see sea level rises of multiple feet in a brief period of time. I think the reasonable line of interpretation with regard to the data is that we're going to see several inches of sea level rise over the next couple of decades - and we're absolutely on track for that. Now, some may also struggle with the "so what" portion of that prediction but it has to be understood what the population on the margins of sea level is currently experiencing. There are places at serious risk - Venice, Miami, basically all of Bangladesh, the Seychelles, parts of Manhattan... A sea level rise of just a few inches in those places can / will make the difference between occasional flooding and constant flooding.
The image of the news article is basically illegible, but it appears to reference temperatures up through the mid 70s, as I discussed in my post on Peter Gwynne. None of it is inaccurate - temperatures from 1940 through the 70s were declining. But note the scale - that article is talking about fractions of a degree Centigrade. Conversely, the warming we've seen in the last 30 years or so has been more than an entire degree Centigrade. Completely different things - and really goes pretty far in underscoring & validating the fact that global temperatures are increasing.
But look, there's no reason to believe me. You're a map guy, you like graphics. Take a look at the SST contour chart I posted yesterday. The Gulf Stream is effectively shut down. You used to be able - as little as a couple of years ago - to look at that same chart and actually see the Gulf Stream's path from the GOM all the way past the UK. You can't anymore. That's a really big deal.
No he’s not right. He posted one article and referencing a period of time where a question was raised given the declining temps over a short period of time. Today 98% of the global scientific community within China, Europe, the US and even Russia believe global warming is happening and very likely the result of human activity..
It's also worth noting that even in 1975, when Gwynne published the Newsweek piece, most climate scientists were in agreement that the long-term trend was for warming rather than cooling.
So no - he's not right.
Still, the New Guy has spent his evening pretending to be shocked at how intolerant of other peoples' opinions we are and saying that BigRedDummy knows more about the subject than we do.
I'm thinking maybe New Guy is a reincarnation of some Former Guy.
That’s funny coming from a guy with multiple screen names. The question is still what’s the solution. World population has doubled since the 70’s. Electric cars and eating bugs can only help so much. Overdevelopment and population are bigger concerns.
Of course that is contributing to making the solution more difficult but it’s not the problem. If 10 billion people live like native Americans we wouldn’t be talking about escalating levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Of course, even if it were happening we would have no idea in that instance.
If you're talking to me, I have 2. The other one was a bit. For a while it was a pretty good bit, but I retired it some time back. Not exactly breaking news, here.
But you're right, "comprehensive solutioning" is something that we haven't really seen much of.
The challenge is that comprehensive solutioning has to be... ya know... comprehensive. And getting the nations of the world to align on any major strategy is nigh impossible.
From the U.S. perspective, Conservatives are dead set against international cooperation on virtually any issue because they see it as the U.S. surrendering decision-making authority to foreign nations and that's an imposition on our sovereignty.
From the international perspective, a lot of nations - specifically developing nations - refuse to curb bad habits because they can't afford it and so are viewed as money grabbers, since their positions generally come down to "we'll do xyz if you pay us".
Which also doesn't play well in Middle America.
IMO we need to do whatever we can. Yes, electric cars only help so much - but they *do* help. Getting rid of fossil fuel electricity generation is, to me, an imperative. I agree with those who say "build the friggin' nuke plants, already". The waste issue really isn't an issue. Bury the **** way down deep and it won't bother anyone.
Getting countries like China and India to align to more sustainable practices isn't likely to occur in the near future, either. I think we just have to get tough on those countries. The downside to getting tough on those countries is that it will (like most other things) make life here in the good ol' U S of A more expensive. But sometimes you have to actually pay for stuff, which seems to be an unpopular sentiment, these days.
But hey, that's just me talking.
You make great points about why it’s so hard. There could have been some significant movement if we focused on eliminating coal with renewables and nuclear. If we just focused globally on doing that, it could go along way. That’s going to happen but not for 30 years. Forget the rest of the fossil fuel complex, we can’t even focus on coal.
Germany choose to close existing nukes before the end of their useful lives and increase coal use. Something of a contadiction if it's an existential crisis.
Hey ru4Bleemjackoff you broke another Board rule, and of course showed what a puss you are by running to this thread with your personal attack on me after getting your head handed to you in the 'Record Heat Out West' thread. Looks like I'll have to monitor your dumbazz **** here too--like when you posted a 3 yr old debunked conspiracy theory about CrackheadHunter's laptop lmao. Moron.
Well they prioritized a short term crisis over a long term one. Makes sense. They will move off of coal as will we.
Nukes were closed because of public pressure after Fukushima, not as part of a larger plan. That has put Germany into a tough spot. The problem with nuclear power is that the public in most places, rightly or wrongly, hates it. It's hard to overcome that, at least in free societies. The industry has not ever helped itself by being secretive.
I don't think there's any disputing your statement. And certainly the Germans have, on occasion, demonstrated an inability to master strategic thinking. But there is some "sorta to their credit" nuance, here. They have, in the past, gotten a fair amount of their electricity from the part of the grid that includes Russia as a supplier. They wanted to divest themselves of that. Their nuke plants are a minority portion of their demand and you could see the coal plants coming, a mile away.
As for closing existing nuclear facilities, I'm not completely read up on that. I'll have to defer.
Come on. You're better than that. Comparing the journalistic integrity of the NYT and the Examiner isn't logical. Not agreeing with the Times is fine. Nobody agrees with them even most of the time. But the Examiner is a rag, period end. They're closer to the National Inquirer than the New York Times.
- Status