• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Environmental Protection Run Amok

Moderate Right said:
That's the point. We are trying. We aren't doing "nothing" and no one, not even Trump, argues that we should be doing nothing. But, there is a cost/benefit aspect to this that liberals totally ignore and they falsely believe that by just fighting global warming we will succeed. There have been many temperature changes, including "global warming" in the past that weren't caused by humans at all. It's natural for our planet to go back and forth like this and even though we can fight it, ultimately, we will not succeed. The Paris accord was unfair to the United States. Trump is open to renegotiating it so that it is more fair to us. Also, since we win a global warming fight, we don't need to be purposely destroying American jobs in that vain attempt to beat mother nature. But, as you said, we can try and do what we can, within reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know the globe is warming, and neither do you. You are being told so by people who make a living at scaming for grants.

The surface record only records urbanization heat which everyone knows occurs because we pour a lot of heat absorbing concrete and heat our buildings in urban areas.

The USCRN established in Jan of 2005 (13 years ago) avoids spacial distribution and urbanization issues and has detected exacly 0.00 degrees of warming since Jan 2005 (where did the warming go?)

I wonder why this fact is NEVER published by the scam industry?
 
SirGareth said:
Science science whose got the science...these are needle in haystack figures no matter which "science" you like. Cant you even see the forest for the trees?

Its all one gigantic "nothing burger" but "hundreds of billions of tons" sounds so big doesn't it ?

See that's how they count on your ignorance, you cant imagine how tiny they are since you have no number sense.

Its a Nancy Pelosi or Barbra Boxer number thing...anything ending is 'illion is BIG and they're all the same too.

They could have put meaning in these numbers so the uniformed would not be misled.

They could have put percentage figures on there stupid numbers with "legitimate" error bars attached to them. The only reason they don't do this is because it's a huge scam.

You are a "denier" if you cant accept this very obvious truth for which you don't even need 8th grade arithmetic to discover

Remember also this "presumed" ice loss is due not to "melting" (as from a warmer Earth) but due to excess ice accumulation in the interior. Ice rivers do not flow like liquid rivers and coastal ice losses have do do with too much interior ice to carry, not too little.

Remember also that legitimate error bars would completely cover the range of the figures they put out, that's why NASA numbers contradict themselves.

I don't endorse any of these fanciful numbers. I just illustrate for the gullible how meaningless they are.
Click to expand...

Considering your inability to even look up the correct figures for ice loss, I don't think you're in a position to lecture anybody about numerical ignorance. You also clearly have no clue whatsoever about the science. Glacier flow rate, for example, is strongly affected by temperature, and there is considerable evidence that the flow rate of Greenland glaciers has accelerated markedly over the past few decades.
 
SirGareth said:
I don't know the globe is warming, and neither do you. You are being told so by people who make a living at scaming for grants.

The surface record only records urbanization heat which everyone knows occurs because we pour a lot of heat absorbing concrete and heat our buildings in urban areas.

The USCRN established in Jan of 2005 (13 years ago) avoids spacial distribution and urbanization issues and has detected exacly 0.00 degrees of warming since Jan 2005 (where did the warming go?)

I wonder why this fact is NEVER published by the scam industry?
Click to expand...

Well, we do know when icecaps melt and I don't think it is because we are entering into an ice age.
 
Moderate Right said:
Lake Michigan has become dramatically clearer in last 20 years ? but at a steep cost


For every action there is an opposite reaction. In the end, you can't fight mother nature. Climate change is happening but fighting it is a totally different story.
Click to expand...

Interesting article. Also has little to do with Environmental Protection or Climate Change...making me wonder if you grasped it at all.

The story of Lake Michigan shows is that our attempts at restoring ecosystems fail a lot, and a goal of maintaining ecosystems is much more manageable.

The Lake is absolutely clearer than when I was a kid, and the fishing is markedly worse - with lake trout being close to nonexistent in the Southern part, salmon declining (but they’re only there from stocking to eat the alewives, which are also gone) and smelt seem to have disappeared, mostly due to the invasive mussel populations.

The next major threat is Asian Carp, which are currently behind an electrical barrier on the Illinois river, but may sneak by one day and colonize the Great Lakes.

The takeaway from this is that it’s much, much easier to prevent problems than to have to deal with them...which may relate to Climate Change after all.
 
longview said:
People equate the massive ongoing effort of saving energy as doing nothing,
The US's not doing nothing has already cut US per capita CO2 emissions to below 1963 levels.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...131k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1.0.IR_Wy8c8q4E
Total emissions I think are below 1994 levels.
Things in the US are actually moving in the right direction, The countries who went full bore early, are hurting.
Some things it is simply best to allow the free market to select the best solution.
If government wants to do "something" they can fix some of the known problems coming,
like unifying the rules for home solar grid attachment.
Click to expand...

That's why I get so pissed of at those saying we aren't doing enough. We are heading the right direction. So what if we are using an economy car to get their instead of a Challenger Hellcat. We don't need to get their fast, as long as we are heading the right direction.
 
Surface Detail said:
According to NASA's Global Climate Change website, the average rate of ice loss per since 2002 has been determined by the GRACE satellites to be 127 ±39 Gt/year from the Antarctic and 286 ±21 Gt/year from Greenland, making a global total of 413 ± 60 Gt/year.

Which NASA site are you getting your figures from?
Click to expand...

Don't believe anything from the bloggers at climate dot nasa. They are pundits. Look at their credentials. Find their source material, and stop listening to their lies.
 
Surface Detail said:
According to NASA's Global Climate Change website, the average rate of ice loss per since 2002 has been determined by the GRACE satellites to be 127 ±39 Gt/year from the Antarctic and 286 ±21 Gt/year from Greenland, making a global total of 413 ± 60 Gt/year.

Which NASA site are you getting your figures from?
Click to expand...

Do you know what GRACE measured for January?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's why I get so pissed of at those saying we aren't doing enough. We are heading the right direction. So what if we are using an economy car to get their instead of a Challenger Hellcat. We don't need to get their fast, as long as we are heading the right direction.
Click to expand...
Real people vote with their wallets, the collective decision will find the best solution, and it will not be oil from the
ground, simply because there is not enough cheap oil left.
We have been working very hard for over a 150 years to find, recover, process and burn enough oil to
raise CO2 levels 125 ppm, to raise it another 155 ppm in the next 50 years, may not be possible.
 
Surface Detail said:
Considering your inability to even look up the correct figures for ice loss, I don't think you're in a position to lecture anybody about numerical ignorance. You also clearly have no clue whatsoever about the science. Glacier flow rate, for example, is strongly affected by temperature, and there is considerable evidence that the flow rate of Greenland glaciers has accelerated markedly over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

You never look for correct data. You believe the bloggers at NASA.



Holly Shaftel, Website Editor and Social Media Specialist
Holly Shaftel manages the website’s daily operations, from publishing news to tracking metrics. She also maintains the related social media channels (NASA Climate Change on Facebook, @NASAClimate on Twitter, and @nasaclimatechange on Instagram) and writes original features for the website. Holly holds a Bachelor’s in Organizational Communication from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and a Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Southern California.

----

Randal Jackson, Website Manager
As an Internet Manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Randal produces websites about Earth science and astronomy and cutting-edge visualization tools for the public. Prior to working for NASA, he was senior editor for science and technology at CNN.com, where he oversaw coverage of such stories as the Pathfinder mission to Mars, the deorbiting of the Mir space station, and the construction of the International Space Station. Randal majored in journalism and drama at the University of Georgia.

----

Susan Callery, Earth Science Public Engagement Manager
Susan Callery is the manager of the Earth Science Public Engagement Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Susan’s team plans, staffs, develops and implements all Earth science communication and outreach activities, with the exception of media. Prior to working for NASA, Susan worked at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and was a City Council member in Poway, Calif. Susan has a B.S. from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Master’s in Environmental Policy and Management from the University of Denver.
​
 
SirGareth said:
I don't know the globe is warming, and neither do you. You are being told so by people who make a living at scaming for grants.

The surface record only records urbanization heat which everyone knows occurs because we pour a lot of heat absorbing concrete and heat our buildings in urban areas.

The USCRN established in Jan of 2005 (13 years ago) avoids spacial distribution and urbanization issues and has detected exacly 0.00 degrees of warming since Jan 2005 (where did the warming go?)

I wonder why this fact is NEVER published by the scam industry?
Click to expand...

They always disregard my points on the loss of evapotranspiration added to the albedo change of urban areas.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You never look for correct data. You believe the bloggers at NASA.



Holly Shaftel, Website Editor and Social Media Specialist
Holly Shaftel manages the website’s daily operations, from publishing news to tracking metrics. She also maintains the related social media channels (NASA Climate Change on Facebook, @NASAClimate on Twitter, and @nasaclimatechange on Instagram) and writes original features for the website. Holly holds a Bachelor’s in Organizational Communication from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and a Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Southern California.

----

Randal Jackson, Website Manager
As an Internet Manager at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Randal produces websites about Earth science and astronomy and cutting-edge visualization tools for the public. Prior to working for NASA, he was senior editor for science and technology at CNN.com, where he oversaw coverage of such stories as the Pathfinder mission to Mars, the deorbiting of the Mir space station, and the construction of the International Space Station. Randal majored in journalism and drama at the University of Georgia.

----

Susan Callery, Earth Science Public Engagement Manager
Susan Callery is the manager of the Earth Science Public Engagement Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Susan’s team plans, staffs, develops and implements all Earth science communication and outreach activities, with the exception of media. Prior to working for NASA, Susan worked at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and was a City Council member in Poway, Calif. Susan has a B.S. from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Master’s in Environmental Policy and Management from the University of Denver.
​
Click to expand...

At least they have the balls to put their real names on their writings, not hide behind an anonymous persona and call the world's scientists wrong because they dont understand their own findings.
 
Surface Detail said:
Considering your inability to even look up the correct figures for ice loss, I don't think you're in a position to lecture anybody about numerical ignorance. You also clearly have no clue whatsoever about the science. Glacier flow rate, for example, is strongly affected by temperature, and there is considerable evidence that the flow rate of Greenland glaciers has accelerated markedly over the past few decades.
Click to expand...

How can there be "correct" figures when they are self contradictory

Button, button who's got the button? "Science, science" who's got the science?

Step right up folks, this handy dandy science does it all: you want socialism - you got socialism; you want welfare grants - this baby will deliver. you want growing ice this science can give it baby, you want shrinking ice; you can have that too.

You want fountains of bull**** - this baby is the mother of all bull****.


Exactly what is your worry? S.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They always disregard my points on the loss of evapotranspiration added to the albedo change of urban areas.
Click to expand...

This is also a valid issue, the cooling of water evaporation through plant stoma, there is no way to adjust for any these factors since they are all unknown.

I have seen the heat of urbanization as much as +20 degrees F on very cold still winter nights in Minnesota. It slowly rolls off as you move towards the rural surroundings.
 
Threegoofs said:
At least they have the balls to put their real names on their writings, not hide behind an anonymous persona and call the world's scientists wrong because they dont understand their own findings.
Click to expand...

The "worlds" climate bureaucrats are all on the take, some people are so offended by all the BS, they must post under a pseudonym since they belongs to organizations who are also on the take. To reveal their names means they will be purged. Some like Judith Curry have to wait until their retirement is secure to expose the hoax.

Judith A. Curry
Climate Forecast Applications Network
Georgia Institute of Technology


Major points:
• Scientific progress is driven by the creative tension spurred by disagreement, uncertainty and
ignorance.

• Progress in understanding the climate system is being hampered by an institutionalized effort to
stifle this creative tension, in the name of a ‘consensus’ that humans have caused recent climate
change.

• Motivated by the mandate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
the climate community has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis on human-caused climate
change to a ruling theory through claims of a consensus.

• Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress
because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. As a
result, we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal
vulnerabilities.

• Challenges to climate research have been exacerbated by:

1) Unreasonable expectations from policy makers

2) Scientists who are playing power politics with their expertise and trying to silence scientific
disagreement through denigrating scientist who do not agree with them

3) Professional societies that oversee peer review in professional journals are writing policy
statements endorsing the consensus and advocating for specific policies

• Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts.
The UNFCCC framed the climate change problem too narrowly and demanded of the IPCC too
much precision – where complexity, chaos, disagreement and the level of current understanding
resists such precision.

• A more disciplined logic is needed in the climate change assessment process that identifies the most
important uncertainties and introduces a more objective assessment of confidence levels.

• Expert panels with diverse perspectives can handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing
what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties
lie.
Click to expand...
 
SirGareth said:
The "worlds" climate bureaucrats are all on the take, some people are so offended by all the BS, they must post under a pseudonym since they belongs to organizations who are also on the take. To reveal their names means they will be purged. Some like Judith Curry have to wait until their retirement is secure to expose the hoax.

Judith A. Curry
Climate Forecast Applications Network
Georgia Institute of Technology
Click to expand...

Well, that’s one alternative reality.
 
SirGareth said:
This is also a valid issue, the cooling of water evaporation through plant stoma, there is no way to adjust for any these factors since they are all unknown.

I have seen the heat of urbanization as much as +20 degrees F on very cold still winter nights in Minnesota. It slowly rolls off as you move towards the rural surroundings.
Click to expand...

When the wind is blowing right, I'm sure it can affect meteorological stations just outside the city significantly.

Where I live we get about 42" of rain annually. I forget what percentage I used as a starting part or this water to go into streams and rivers, to storm sewers, but it was probably around 75% ground retention, and 25% streams. Then calculated that to something like 85% storm sewers and 15% ground retention. I was just SWAGing it, but yields a loss of around 60% of that 42 inches, or 25.2 inches of loss. Anyway, that becomes 0.64 metric tons of water per square meter. I then applied the heat of evaporation, using watt-seconds instead of joules, and came out with a change of over 7 W/m^2 of cooling.

Effectively greater than a 7 W/m^2 increase in warming. This doesn't even include the changing emissivity if concrete, asphalt, etc. vs. vegetation.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You have Victim Culture to thank for this, this idea that humans are victimizing the planet and the government must take the Planets side, not the humans side...the argument that humans doing what is best for humans is an abusive act.

I part ways with Zen here, I say that the Planet like our lives is a tool for our use, that our obligation is to use it as best we can, but using it is not abuse.
Click to expand...

The planet is what sustains us and keeps us alive. Taking the planet's side IS taking the humans' side. Doing what's best for for humans is doing what's best for the planet, as should be screamingly obvious.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The planet is what sustains us and keeps us alive. Taking the planet's side IS taking the humans' side. Doing what's best for for humans is doing what's best for the planet, as should be screamingly obvious.
Click to expand...

Well now I was raised on Alan Watts who used to say that the Earth Sprouts Humans or something like that so yes, but what is best for humans must always be top priority......if we should find ourselves depriving ourselves of much needed water so that the Snail Darter can live, or giving rivers human rights, then we have messed up.
 
Nature adapts to the changing conditions. It is still better that the lake is cleaner. Stock it if you want more commercial fishing.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The planet is what sustains us and keeps us alive. Taking the planet's side IS taking the humans' side. Doing what's best for for humans is doing what's best for the planet, as should be screamingly obvious.
Click to expand...

The inquisition was in the business of "protecting God" from assaults by those he created, the inquisitors were, in effect, "God's cops."

So now that God is dead and humans are created, not in God's image, but as the children of Gaia, could you be described as one of "Gaia's cops?"

What do you think of the idea of naming a grand inquisitor in order to prosecute those who are not on "Gaia's side" ?
 
backpacker said:
Nature adapts to the changing conditions. It is still better that the lake is cleaner. Stock it if you want more commercial fishing.
Click to expand...

Better for humans or better for bacteria and plankton? You sound as it you are quite bigoted against a lot of of God's smaller creatures
 
SirGareth said:
The inquisition was in the business of "protecting God" from assaults by those he created, the inquisitors were, in effect, "God's cops."

So now that God is dead and humans are created, not in God's image, but as the children of Gaia, could you be described as one of "Gaia's cops?"

What do you think of the idea of naming a grand inquisitor in order to prosecute those who are not on "Gaia's side" ?
Click to expand...

Huh. How oddly irrelevant to what I posted.
 
Lord of Planar said:
When the wind is blowing right, I'm sure it can affect meteorological stations just outside the city significantly.

Where I live we get about 42" of rain annually. I forget what percentage I used as a starting part or this water to go into streams and rivers, to storm sewers, but it was probably around 75% ground retention, and 25% streams. Then calculated that to something like 85% storm sewers and 15% ground retention. I was just SWAGing it, but yields a loss of around 60% of that 42 inches, or 25.2 inches of loss. Anyway, that becomes 0.64 metric tons of water per square meter. I then applied the heat of evaporation, using watt-seconds instead of joules, and came out with a change of over 7 W/m^2 of cooling.

Effectively greater than a 7 W/m^2 increase in warming. This doesn't even include the changing emissivity if concrete, asphalt, etc. vs. vegetation.
Click to expand...

The USCRN data is probably as as good as it gets, you cannot easily find links to it. This is the 114 "pristine nework" located in areas where land use is rural and has not changed and has data collection methods that can stand up to scrutiny.

What NOAA has done is to "correct" the "USHRN" historical (and incorrect) data to make it match the USCRN as exactly as they can by adjusting it to match.

Here is where climate science "magic" comes in, they then use this "correction factor" to correct all of the USHRN data for the years preceding 2005 when the USCRN became active by extrapolation.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for one thing the USA has changed considerably from 1895 to 2005 so how do they (and we) know that that are correcting correctly?

More magic. Now the fudged record (manipulated) to make the past look colder becomes the standard by which real USCRN data is said to quantify anomalous "warming"

WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom