Climate Change

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bryan I work with models, I sometimes build models for the purposes of predicting insurance losses. The accuracy of any model, is very sensitive to the magnitude of the assumptions that underly the model. In the case of predicting the impacts of climate change, there is a tremendous amount of speculation behind the assumptions. We don't know if the atmosphere or the oceans have the ability to absorb, or offset, increased emissions. We have almost no idea. It's very, very speculative at this point. If you are about to flip a coin a thousand times, we know that you'll get approximately 50% heads. That is established science. You want to predict what the effect will be, of unprecedented emissions? Speculation. The third world has never been developed before, so we have very little actual empirical evidence, upon which to base our assumptions. Which means the assumptions are speculative. The last time I checked, polar bear numbers were increasing. That wasn't supposed to happen if the models were accurate.

I want to pay taxes to fund the research. But I don't like the idea of some limousine liberal, suggesting that people
In developing countries don't have the same right to the cheap comforts ( heat in the winter, a/c in the summer) that the limousine liberal enjoys. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the ranks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes there are assumptions.
Absolutely, correct.
But if you company made a model for life insurance based on risk factors, and one variable was for smoking, if there were 100 different models with 100 different assumptions about life expectancy and smoking, and all 100 had a slightly different reduction in life expectancy, but all said you were going to die sooner, your company would charge more for insurance for smokers, right? Or because one models aid average life expectancy is reduced 8 years, and one says 6 years and ones says 4 years, you would say, nope, all models are bad.

The models vary assumptions. They vary parameters in future concentrations, and sequestration and volcanoes and increased cloud cover, and future absorption of carbon in the deep ocean etc etc etc.. But the trend of the models is the same. More GHG's more warming. More warming less land based ice and higher sea levels (among other things).


Actually, from the geologic record, we have a very good idea of past conditions. The last time we saw 400ppm of CO2, was 4 million years ago. The cause of that rise was of course not anthropocentric, but one thought is that changes to ocean heat balances (currents) over long time periods produced changes in T and CO2. At that time average temperatures in the arctic were much higher than present (one link below from Julie B-G's team at UMASS).

Do you dispute the basic physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What do you think of the Pope's stance on climate change?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one...

https://twitter.com/FlatEarthOrg?ref...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I find it implausible that they are out there, but I was behind this
guy a few weeks ago...

So I'll ask you, do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one...

Kyrie Irving, Shaq

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I think fisherman, who can see tangible evidence of mans impact on the oceans (overfishing, acidification) should have a stronger appreciation for mans impact on the climate system as a whole.

I think fishermen probably do have an above-average appreciation.

I really, really like nature. Before we had kids, my wife and I spent a lot of our money, too much, going to Alaska repetedly. I want that pristine, healthy place for future generations to enjoy.

But over-reacting, can have lethal consequences. Here's what I mean by that...

Not all that long ago, it was determined that spraying DDT to kill mosquitoes, was causing bird eggs to be so thin-shelled, that the eggs were crushed when the mother sat on the eggs. So the environmentalists got a ban on DDT.

Great for the birds. Not so great for the untold thousands of African children who needlessly died of malaria, because the mosquito population exploded.

So when the deep-thinker George Clooney says something to the effect of "why not implement some of the green energy ideas, the worst that will happen, is we'll clean up the planet a bit", he has no idea what he's talking about and should have his head examined to see what's in there, where his brain is supposed to be. But the left gives him a pretty large platform, from which he can spew the lunacy that there's no downside if we change course suddenly. For damn sure, no one on the left challenges his notion that there is no downside.

People who live in the developed world, enjoy a LOT of benefits - more comforts, better health, longer life expectancies. Much of the third world wants those things just as badly as we want them. I don't know on what basis we get to tell them, that they can't have them, just because we got there first and now we're going to change the rules and make it much harder to develop they way we did.

I hear every word you are saying, and I agree with a lot of it, you don't come across as a thoughtless fanatic at all. We just need to look before we leap.

And as usual, we need to stop demonizing everyone who has a slightly different opinion. I'm not an idiot, I'm not a science denier, I'm not anything that they claim I am...you don't advance a major ideological agenda that way.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

November 11, 2015

Ozone Hole Over Antarctica Nears Record-Breaking Size Again


The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is nearing record-breaking size again, scientists say. In fact, new observations show that the infamous "ozone hole" is currently larger than the entire continent of North America.

Scientists thought the apparent stabilization indicated that the ozone layer was recovering very gradually. But this year's ozone hole surprised them because it formed a whole month later in the year than the ozone hole typically forms, and its size is almost record-breaking.

I was under the impression that Obama had fixed that too

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think fishermen probably do have an above-average appreciation.

I really, really like nature. Before we had kids, my wife and I spent a lot of our money, too much, going to Alaska repetedly. I want that pristine, healthy place for future generations to enjoy.

But over-reacting, can have lethal consequences. Here's what I mean by that...

Not all that long ago, it was determined that spraying DDT to kill mosquitoes, was causing bird eggs to be so thin-shelled, that the eggs were crushed when the mother sat on the eggs. So the environmentalists got a ban on DDT.

Great for the birds. Not so great for the untold thousands of African children who needlessly died of malaria, because the mosquito population exploded.

So when the deep-thinker George Clooney says something to the effect of "why not implement some of the green energy ideas, the worst that will happen, is we'll clean up the planet a bit", he has no idea what he's talking about and should have his head examined to see what's in there, where his brain is supposed to be. But the left gives him a pretty large platform, from which he can spew the lunacy that there's no downside if we change course suddenly. For damn sure, no one on the left challenges his notion that there is no downside.

People who live in the developed world, enjoy a LOT of benefits - more comforts, better health, longer life expectancies. Much of the third world wants those things just as badly as we want them. I don't know on what basis we get to tell them, that they can't have them.

I hear every word you are saying, and I agree with a lot of it, you don't come across as a thoughtless fanatic at all. We just need to look before we leap.

And as usual, we need to stop demonizing everyone who has a slightly different opinion. I'm not an idiot, I'm not a science denier, I'm not anything that they claim I am...you don't advance a major ideological agenda that way.

All of that is why things like the Paris Accord (and Koyoto before that) allow developing countries more leeway. You have a more thoughtful approach to that than many on the right.

This will ultimately become an economic issue; unwise coastal development + increasing sea level + storms (and lets assume the same frequency and intensity of storms) will continue to cost us more and more in the coming years. Swiss Re and Munich Re adopted climate change impacts and as their part of their risk assessment

[RIROCKHOUND]

So Jim...
What do you think of the Pope's very public stance on climate change?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.

The difference between the ozone and what's happening now is that this is related to oil. We as a planet are addicted to it.
Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking"

More like, try telling a family that they won't have heat in the winter. It's not as superfluous as drinking, Nebe. Not everyone on the planet can afford a geothermal system. And if we reduce oil usage, who determines who gets to keep using oil, and who doesn't?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

November 11, 2015

I was under the impression that Obama had fixed that too

Obama is also under that impression.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So Jim...
What do you think of the Pope's very public stance on climate change?

Honestly? I'm a fairly devout Catholic. I don't know what his public stance is on climate change, and I don't particularly care, not any more than I care about what George Clooney says about climate change, nor any more than I care what the Pope says about immigration. I care what the Pope says about matters of faith. When the Catholic Church says he is infallible when speaking about politics, is the day I shop for a new religion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All of that is why things like the Paris Accord (and Koyoto before that) allow developing countries more leeway. You have a more thoughtful approach to that than many on the right.

This will ultimately become an economic issue; unwise coastal development + increasing sea level + storms (and lets assume the same frequency and intensity of storms) will continue to cost us more and more in the coming years. Swiss Re and Munich Re adopted climate change impacts and as their part of their risk assessment

"You have a more thoughtful approach to that than many on the right."

Same to you, thanks.

"This will ultimately become an economic issue"

Agreed.

Every insurance company closely monitors frequency and severity of hurricanes, and tries to best guess what future trends will be. Those that don't do that, filed for Chapter 11 the day after Hurricane Andrew.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All of that is why things like the Paris Accord (and Koyoto before that) allow developing countries more leeway. You have a more thoughtful approach to that than many on the right.

I want everyone on the planet to be healthy, comfortable, and to thrive. Despite what you hear said about me on TV every night, that's exactly what I want, and what I pray for.

I think everyone on the right whom I admire, feels exactly the same way (obviously, there are plenty of thoughtless jerks on both sides, I am referring to the people I listen to, like George W Bush, Trey Gowdy, Tom Cotton, Charles Krauthammer, etc). If you think my thoughtfulness is the exception, I think you are being duped by media types who want you to believe that everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, watches re-runs of 'Hee Haw' all day, and we only get up out of our chairs to scratch ourselves or beat our wives.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I want everyone on the planet to be healthy, comfortable, and to thrive. Despite what you hear said about me on TV every night, that's exactly what I want, and what I pray for.

I think everyone on the right whom I admire, feels exactly the same way (obviously, there are plenty of thoughtless jerks on both sides, I am referring to the people I listen to, like George W Bush, Trey Gowdy, Tom Cotton, Charles Krauthammer, etc). If you think my thoughtfulness is the exception, I think you are being duped by media types who want you to believe that everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders, watches re-runs of 'Hee Haw' all day, and we only get up out of our chairs to scratch ourselves or beat our wives.

I am sure they are good people.

So you take a Krauthammer approach? As I recall, he believes that CO2 is a threat but he thinks scientists can't predict what will happen in the future, so...punt on it for now I guess? Then he fell into the same trap of blaming models and the mythical 'pause'...

You are a thoughtful guy Jim, if CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, which has an impact on the climate system, shouldn't the US be leading on ways to reduce emissions to reduce that risk (and reduce our dependence on imported energy?). I say that while driving a car and using oil for hot water. I'm not advocating for all of us to bike to work, although efficiency is a big part of the story moving forward.

There is semi-good news, we have reduced the rate of rise a bit, largely by industry switching to natural gas from coal because it is cleaner and cheaper. The trend is still up for CO2, but at a slower rate. There are at least some workable solutions to start to work on this. Those nice thoughtful folks in the GOP are out-numbered by the Imhoffs of the world I'm afraid.

enough fun. back to work...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, Stop Drinking!!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nebe, Stop Drinking!!

Ummm.
Kev, we're friends on Facebook, and given your posts.. Pot, meet kettle

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am sure they are good people.

So you take a Krauthammer approach? As I recall, he believes that CO2 is a threat but he thinks scientists can't predict what will happen in the future, so...punt on it for now I guess? Then he fell into the same trap of blaming models and the mythical 'pause'...

You are a thoughtful guy Jim, if CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, which has an impact on the climate system, shouldn't the US be leading on ways to reduce emissions to reduce that risk (and reduce our dependence on imported energy?). I say that while driving a car and using oil for hot water. I'm not advocating for all of us to bike to work, although efficiency is a big part of the story moving forward.

There is semi-good news, we have reduced the rate of rise a bit, largely by industry switching to natural gas from coal because it is cleaner and cheaper. The trend is still up for CO2, but at a slower rate. There are at least some workable solutions to start to work on this. Those nice thoughtful folks in the GOP are out-numbered by the Imhoffs of the world I'm afraid.

enough fun. back to work...

"So you take a Krauthammer approach?"

In general, I hope so. On this issue, I don't know where he stands.

"shouldn't the US be leading on ways to reduce emissions to reduce that risk (and reduce our dependence on imported energy?). I say that while driving a car and using oil for hot water. I'm not advocating for all of us to bike to work, although efficiency is a big part of the story moving forward."

Agreed 100%.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Those nice thoughtful folks in the GOP are out-numbered by the Imhoffs of the world I'm afraid.

k...

Not even close.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Ummm.
Kev, we're friends on Facebook, and given your posts.. Pot, meet kettle

Yeah, but there's still hope for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Nebe, Stop Drinking!!

From my cold dead hands....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

if CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, which has an impact on the climate system, shouldn't the US be leading on ways to reduce emissions to reduce that risk (and reduce our dependence on imported energy?). I say that while driving a car and using oil for hot water. I'm not advocating for all of us to bike to work, although efficiency is a big part of the story moving forward.

...

I suspect we agree more on environmental issues than we disagree...I think everyone should have to keep all of their garbage on their premises for a month(or more) and figure out what to do with it...I have solar panels in the early 90's, which is funny because it was just established we didn't have those technologies a decade ago....my goal is to live in a tiny house and I'm considering a Co-Exist bumper sticker for my Subaru wagon.......the economic impact of falling overboard is much greater now than it was 20 years ago and this will always be true....20 years ago you probably would't have an Iphone in your pocket and expensive breathable jacket and bibs.....storms are going to happen and people will still build in their path and collect expensive trinkets to get wrecked

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yes there are assumptions.
Absolutely, correct.
But if you company made a model for life insurance based on risk factors, and one variable was for smoking, if there were 100 different models with 100 different assumptions about life expectancy and smoking, and all 100 had a slightly different reduction in life expectancy, but all said you were going to die sooner, your company would charge more for insurance for smokers, right? Or because one models aid average life expectancy is reduced 8 years, and one says 6 years and ones says 4 years, you would say, nope, all models are bad.

The models vary assumptions. They vary parameters in future concentrations, and sequestration and volcanoes and increased cloud cover, and future absorption of carbon in the deep ocean etc etc etc.. But the trend of the models is the same. More GHG's more warming. More warming less land based ice and higher sea levels (among other things).


Actually, from the geologic record, we have a very good idea of past conditions. The last time we saw 400ppm of CO2, was 4 million years ago. The cause of that rise was of course not anthropocentric, but one thought is that changes to ocean heat balances (currents) over long time periods produced changes in T and CO2. At that time average temperatures in the arctic were much higher than present (one link below from Julie B-G's team at UMASS).

Do you dispute the basic physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What do you think of the Pope's stance on climate change?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/

I just saw this...all I can say is, I don't believe for a second, that science is anywhere near as close to knowing what the effects of current human activity will be on the planet, as we are to knowing the effects of smoking on health and life expectancy. I can certainly be convinced of that with different data, but not from what I have seen, though I am FAR from knowledgeable.

If one model says smoking cuts life expectancy by 6 years, another says 4 years...than no, I would not conclude all models are worthless. But if the models said 6 and 4 years, and then smokers started living forever, then I would say the models are flawed.

How many of the predictions from the climate change folks have come true, and how many have not? I think polar bear numbers are increasing, and that ice in the Antarctic is advancing. Did any models predict that?

Take my tax dollars and keep researching. Give the research money to objective scientists who aren't ideologically biased. And then share the results with me. And please use some of that money to tell George Clooney to shut the hell up.

And let's due what we can to encourage more development of realistic, feasible green energy. But let's look before we leap.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Those nice thoughtful folks in the GOP are out-numbered by the Imhoffs of the world I'm afraid.

..

I Googled Imhoff and got a basketball player(oh...probably a flat-earther) and a German engineer born in 1876....you'd think whoever you are talking about would rate higher in the rankings

[scottw]

though I'm not entirely sure about the Co-Exist sticker because the last one I saw was on a big SUV tailgating me then speeding east on 195 in E. Prov. driven by a woman going at least 85....I guess she was good with Co-Existing as long as everyone got the bleep out of her way....not sure I want to be associated with those people...I would like some bee hives and maybe a greenhouse for organic produce but now I'm concerned that it may not be safe inside a greenhouse with all of those harmful greenhouse gasses floating around

[boot man]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.


Makes you wonder....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So this isn't the first time it sucked to be a penguin, walk all the way to the Middle East, get on a boat, boat runs aground in alps, walk back to Antarctica.

I guess my life's not all that bad after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

now I'm concerned that it may not be safe inside a greenhouse with all of those harmful greenhouse gasses floating around

So not exactly the same thing as GHG do not work that way, but what the hell

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one...

It's what they now call climate change deniers .
Funny , the kids are all experts on climate change however most couldn't name the three branches of government on a bet . Might have something to do with where the grant money goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's what they now call climate change deniers .
Funny , the kids are all experts on climate change however most couldn't name the three branches of government on a bet . Might have something to do with where the grant money goes.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...t-name-rights/

[wdmso]

New cars produced in the world 2015 68,560,000
1999 39,759,847 Numbers do not include commercial vehicles take Note new a year not whats currently on the road

World population growth accelerated after World War II, when the population of less developed countries began to increase dramatically. ... Human population entered the 20th century with 1.6 billion people and left the century with 6.1 billion.

No way humans could have any affect on the Climate or fish stocks or hell even traffic..

NOAA reports sea levels are rising along parts of the Florida coast by more than a third of an inch every year.

The average person visiting a favorite beach or fishing hole surely won't notice the difference. Bingo !!! if it i cant see it its not happening or real

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No way humans could have any affect on the Climate or fish stocks or hell even traffic..

who has ever said that humans have no affect on climate, fish stocks and traffic?

oh wait...is it those people that deny that the climate exists?..you know...the "climate deniers"

so many windmills to joust....

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.


Makes you wonder....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


hey Eben, if a guy ( the current Pope) is dumb enough to believe in Noah's Ark, the Resurrection and that his Heavenly Father is floating above in the clouds(invisible friends) observing things issues a statement supporting much of the climate alarmist agenda....is/are he(and those that dutifully follow his word) suddenly intelligent and forward thinking?