Climate: Why I Believe, What It Would Take To Change My Mind

10 Jun 2019 21:47 #71 by Rick
Some great questions there Ramage.

Just on a humorous note (if someone before me didn’t already mention this).... I had to chuckle when I heard Glazier National Park was quietly removing their signs that say “Gone by 2020”. I think their new slogan should be “Won’t be here Forever”.

But seriously, how is that not a great analogy to “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Jun 2019 22:06 #72 by Rick
Sorry, one more question for you all to ponder and generously consider... (I hope at least one of you can answer and show how big your brain works );

Of all green electric vehicles built today, what percentage of energy used to build said cars was also green?

Just an aprox guess unless you have some verifiable facts...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Jun 2019 22:46 #73 by ScienceChic

FNP wrote: For those of you interested in the Hansen testimony, it can be found in the Congressional Record of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing on June 23, 1988. All 222 pages of it.

So, I've now read through all 222 pages and unless I missed something, there was not a single mention of sea level rise of 1-4' sometime between the year 2025 and 2050, by either Dr. Hansen or the other 5 people who provided testimony that day.

Dr. Oppenheimer's testimony begins on Page 87 and he stated that there would be a sea level rise of 2.5"/decade over the next century and a doubling of carbon emissions over the next 40 years (getting us to 630ppm).

Dr. Woodwell's testimony begins on Page 97 and he stated there'd be a doubling of CO2 by 2030 and on Page 103 said we'd have 30cm (11.8") to 1.5m (5') of sea level rise over the next 50-100 years (years 2038-2088, not 2025-2050).

Dr. Manabe (Page 111) spoke about soil wetness, Mr. Dudek (Page 123) talked about crop yields and irrigation, and Dr. Moomaw (Page 148) I didn't even bother make notes about (he was from the World Resources Institute).

Again, this is another example of misrepresenting, no, flat out lying, about what scientists have said (and 31 years ago no about we discuss the most recent data as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and summarized in the IPCC reports?) in order to confuse the issue and keep people from coming together to work on this problem. How much longer are we (collective) going to keep doing this ridiculous dance?

If we had started reducing our carbon dependency 20 years ago, we wouldn't have had to cut so drastically and it wouldn't have cost as much. Every decade we put this off the harder it will be and the more expensive it will be. Just like if you start saving for retirement at 45 rather than at 25.

ramage, I have struggled with whether to answer your questions. I can't decide if you truly want to discuss this or not, because you can just as easily Google those questions just like you told me to do with Hansen's testimony. I went back and re-read every page here and realized that we don't actually have a definition posted so I'm going to add that.

ramage wrote: Let's cut to the chase:
1) Please define climate change.
2) If you believe in climate change please tell us what is the cause.
3) Please explain the ice age, the presence of dinosaurs in WY/CO as to how climate change impacted the dinosaurs.
4) Is climate change a positive or negative for the entire planet.
5) What is the climate that is desirable and should be thought of as a goal? Again consider the entire planet.

1. Climate change refers to significant changes in global temperature, precipitation, wind patterns and other measures of climate that occur over several decades or longer. Source

2. Listing both natural and anthropogenic, not necessarily all-encompassing, and in no particular order:
solar irradiance
quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
water vapor
snow/ice cover (albedo)
volcanic eruptions/aerosols
changes in land vegetation
changes in earth's orbit
changes in the orientation of the Earth’s axis of rotation
ocean currents
meteorite impacts

3. Why?

4. Climate change is what it is. For the planet, there is no positive or negative, it will continue to exist regardless of whether it's a gigantic ice ball or it turns into Venus. For the life contained on the planet, that's another matter.

5. Umm, the climate we've had since the existence of our species? Humans and the current flora and fauna have evolved in a relatively stable climactic era and are adapted to the current conditions as seen in the percentages of the various gases in our atmosphere, the amount of [clean] fresh and salt water available on the planet, the amount of habitable, cultivatible land, and temperature ranges of approximately -50oF to +130oF. Any drastic changes to those conditions and life struggles and/or becomes deceased/extinct.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Your scars exist, but it’s your courage that defines you. ~Nalini Singh

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

17 Jun 2019 14:16 #74 by ramage
My questions to you where designed to elicit your opinions not those of someone on the internet. Looking at your answers we are in agreement on the following:

1.The definition of climate change. With the understanding that change is exactly that, something different, not a deviation from some norm.

2.Your list of factors that cause variations in climate.

3. For those dinosaurs, the climate that existed during their time on the planet was their ideal. My opinion, unable to be sourced. If one subscribes to the dinosaur devastating- meteor impact, the effects of the impact wiped out the dinosaurs by changing the climate and allowed for the evolution of the species.

4 I am in agreement.

5.Again I agree, with the proviso that one accepts that the climate during the existence of our species has varied dramatically, e.g. the ice age.

Our disagreement is the degree to which the anthropogenic cause influences climate change. As I posted sometime earlier, the hubris of the Anthropogenic Acolytes is astounding. There is little to no consideration of reality and cost. For example, doing away with air travel, doing away with methane-producing cows. Please see the Green New Deal for additional proposals by the Antrhropogenic Climate Change proponents.

My personal opinion is that "Anthropogenic Climate Change" has become a religion for its supporters.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my questions.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

12 Jul 2019 06:49 #75 by ramage
The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking
Mark P. Mills
March 26, 2019
Energy & EnvironmentTechnology / Infrastructure

Read the whole article, here is but a sample:

* Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

* Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

* The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

12 Jul 2019 10:29 #76 by FredHayek
Love your point about that the perfect environment for Dinosaurs is much different than the perfect environment for humans. And is right now, the perfect conditions for humans? As long as the warming is relatively slow enough, I think humans can adapt. Technology is amazing.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

22 Aug 2019 17:40 #77 by Blazer Bob
Because, SHUT UP!

This story is a few days old, but worth noting nevertheless. This account is from the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was:

Solar physicist Nir Shaviv reluctantly granted science journalist Doron Levin an interview, although Shaviv was skeptical that it would be published. A similar interview to a reporter for Bloomberg was reject by its editorial board. Leven assured Shaviv that Forbes would publish the interview online. It did – for a few hours. The interview was an immediate hit. Then, Forbes yanked the report with the statement:

After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards. We are providing our readers the headline, author and first paragraphs in the interest of transparency.

We regret any inconvenience.

What was Shaviv’s sin? "...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

23 Aug 2019 06:42 #78 by homeagain
MIGHT want to research how VITAL the rain forest is. With the wide spread wildfire that is wiping out massive amounts of ""climate control" just might become a believer in the science....
but hey that is JMO.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

23 Aug 2019 09:11 #79 by FredHayek
LOL, looks like the Left hasn't convinced President Obama of the dangers of climate change well enough. He just bought a 28 acre 14 million dollar home on Martha's Vineyard. Must not believe the reports that say hurricanes will be more severe as the Earth heats up. And he must not believe the icecaps melting will flood his island home. And he appears to totally dismiss the idea that Americans need to lower their carbon footprint, he is dramatically increasing his.


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

23 Aug 2019 11:43 #80 by ramage
Measuring carbon footprints is quite easy, an internet search will show more than a dozen sites for doing so.
As to reading minds, Brandon, the post states "appears", if you equate appears with mind-reading so be it.
Actually Obama is sacrificing himself and his family to climate change; fully knowing that the earth has only 12 years to live (and if one was an acolyte of Gore, the time has past) he is willing to live on the beach. Good for him. If, in the 11th year, he changes his mind I have some property at 8700 ft that might interest him.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.488 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
© My Mountain Town (new)