Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 9 of 9
Topic:
Global Warming
This thread has 131 replies. Displaying posts 121 through 132.
Post 121 made on Thursday November 7, 2019 at 04:39
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
3,202
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

This is simply a cherry picked data point that makes the climate change discussion more difficult.
Post 122 made on Thursday November 7, 2019 at 11:30
tomciara
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2002
7,031
On November 7, 2019 at 04:39, buzz said...
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

This is simply a cherry picked data point that makes the climate change discussion more difficult.

You have hit on the trouble with your statement. It seems everyone starts with a view point, and takes cherry picked data to reinforce it. Meanwhile cherry picked data that contradicts is dismissed, and anyone that may have a contrary view is also dissed and given a label such as Fool or Denier. At that point it is no discussion at all, am I right?

If you have just now arrived here, the many pages of comments, plus the many, many links, could take you a while to go through.

But if you were somebody determined to think for yourself, with no bias, you would have to take the considerable evidence in this thread and admit that there is lots of data that leaves the current popular conclusions suspect.

That is where discussion takes place. There has been lots of good back and forth here.

When it devolves into “97% of the world knows that...”, it ceases to be a rational discussion.

Meanwhile, did you see my tagline?
"People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." - Blaise Pascal
Post 123 made on Thursday November 7, 2019 at 19:48
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
3,202
On November 7, 2019 at 11:30, tomciara said...
If you have just now arrived here, the many pages of comments, plus the many, many links, could take you a while to go through.

I have not been following this discussion, post by post, but I have been on the climate change bandwagon since before it was a bandwagon. And I learned long ago that "conventional wisdom" is not always correct.

I'm not sure exactly where I read this (probably a Scout manual), but as a child "everyone knew" that a stream would purify itself in a mile. Because of this I was yawning at the idea that there was a sewer treatment plant emergency because "everyone knew" that the problem would be gone in a mile. In my early teens I was on a low level "puddle hopper" flight. As we crossed over a river I noticed a gray slick entering the river, probably from a sewer discharge. I thought this was a wonderful opportunity for me to see that "mile" in action. I moved to the other side of the plane and observed ... er ... that the gray slick continued to the horizon! That was a turning point for me and blindly accepting "conventional wisdom".
Post 124 made on Saturday November 9, 2019 at 19:18
Mac Burks (39)
Elite Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2007
17,194
On November 7, 2019 at 19:48, buzz said...
That was a turning point for me and blindly accepting "conventional wisdom".

Many people over the years have told me that "its impossible for humans to affect the planet". They back the statement up with facts like how the globe could easily handle more humans and that we are an insignificant "flea on the backside".

First thing is that a flea can actually cause you to die but thats neither here nor there.

Second thing is i always wonder how many of the naysayers have ever lived in a large city. In the suburbs or rural areas i can see how one might assume that the planet could clean itself up. In the city you learn very quickly how filthy things can get.

My current metric is my back yard. When i had one dog i could walk around the yard without worrying about stepping in dog poop. The lawn mower the rain the sun the snow handled the mess for me. Then we got a second dog. The yard could no longer handle the mess by itself. After a third dog the back yard is basically a toilet now that required biweekly cleaning.

I am not a climate scientist so i cant go into specifics. I am not a lawyer either. But...when i have to go to court i hire a lawyer because i know that they made it their business to learn the law. Same with climate scientists. If a climate scientist says (and most/99% of them are) "humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a livable condition for humanity" i am going to believe them until someone with similar scientific credentials tells me different. Politician or employee of a fossil fuel company or some guy like me who watched a YouTube video are not good sources for information about climate science.

At the end of the day...whats the worst thing that could happen if we cleaned up the planet? People would live longer healthier lives. The only people arguing against the clean up effort are those who stand to gain financially by continuing to pollute and those who just want to argue against the "other team".

Finally...my favorite argument is "who is going to pay for it?". The answer is quite simple...the same people who pay for bombs. The people who pay for roads and teachers. The people who enjoy using things like the 911 emergency service. Our tax dollars will be used to clean up the planet instead of paying for lung cancer treatment for our children because the air is poison.
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Post 125 made on Saturday November 9, 2019 at 19:41
davidcasemore
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
2,976
On November 9, 2019 at 19:18, Mac Burks (39) said...
Many people over the years have told me that "its impossible for humans to affect the planet".

Oh, why are you bothering? The facts are in: It's all a hoax started by China.

The deniers on here just cut & paste nonsense that they come across - most of which has been discredited long ago, or is meaningless to the subject at hand. There's a great article in the current Skeptical Inquirer magazine which puts a lot of these issues to rest and basically says we're all going to die really soon.

Now, I could cut & paste, or quote the article (which is filled with references) but, as Trevor Noah says: "Ain't no-one got time for that". Plus, I really don't care to waste my time trying to persuade somebody that their nonsense is just that.
Fins: Still Slamming' - One Trunk at a Time
Post 126 made on Sunday November 10, 2019 at 16:20
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,410
On November 6, 2019 at 14:56, djy said...

unless really necessary I won't bother quoting you (I am guessing this post will be too long to begin with) and will just used your numeration if someone wants to go back to check


1 & 2

according to the oxford dictionary
​(of a natural event) causing sudden and violent change

your link says for the first one

Some theories suggest that the Earth was covered in such a vast quantity of plants that they removed too much carbon dioxide from the air which drastically reduced the temperature.

and for the second

Information is unclear as to whether the late Devonian extinction was one single major event or spread over hundreds of thousands of years.

the first one does not sound cataclysmic and if the second part of the second one is right neither does it. Both of those sound like slow gradual changes over a long time that made them destructive.

I also find it funny that even though you brought up the article and he is saying we are a lot less sure of what happens in those two periods you find it easier to dismiss the third one because the first two kind of fit your argument while the third one does not.

As for the last two yes it would be cooler in the shadow of the asteroids before they hit the earth but I am guessing that getting crushed by the asteroid would have had more to do with the death of the animals and plants at the impact site than the cool of the shadow. If the asteroid slap the earth so hard that molten core smashed against the crust and came spewing out the other side ( aka volcanos) and all together they sent crud in the air so thick that it cooled the planet because it blocked the sun don't you think having that crud fall back to earth would have been destructive? don't you think that darkness (enough to cool the planet) would have reeked havoc on plant life ( that means issue with food for herbivores...)

as for your ccc fear can't you see the irony in that? you don't fear the CO2 being let loose now but you fear that if we trap it and make it harmless now in the future it might escape and cause an issue.


3) missing the point , there is a difference between global issue and local issue.
CO2 was having an effect on the UK (and other industrial nations) environment before that, that is why I brought up the peppered moth example.
But let's face it according to you it is still not an issue (locally or globally) and will never be.

4 & 5
Let me try this differently.
a)
I don't know how things work in the UK but here (& now) if you build a new place you need to pay for the infrastructure to connect to the existing network. Two summers ago I was working on clients cottage and I saw he had put solar cells on the roof, so I asked him about it, he said HQ told him it would be over 70k (if I remember correctly) to connect him to the grid and he crunched the numbers and decided to go solar and batteries instead. How much do you think that he paid the sun last year so he can produce his own electricity? At my sisters cottage she installed a propane generator as a backup (like I said before, in a few days or hours with out heat water in the pipes will freeze and cause major damage) I was there at Christmas time when the electricity went out for a few hours and so the generator (connected to the furnace and fridge) went on for that time. I don't know if she lost electricity some other time but who do you think paid more to produce electricity (my client for a full year 24/7 or my sister for the few hours when the power went out during the year.)

b) you posted previously

Forgive me, but I find being lectured by someone paying five times less per unit of electricity than me

I already pay the equivalent of nearly 31 cents a unit for my electricity

At present, the market price for electricity is approximately £45 per MWh

Leaving aside the suspicion of how supposedly unrelated companies manage to bid the same price… and why, if they were only going to bid market price they even bothered with the CfD auction

the last one dealing with prices ranging from £39.65 to £41.61 per megawatt/hour (MWh)

can't you see the obvious? Let me spell it out

first (starting from the end) the reason they can all bid at roughly the same price and one near "market price" is that they can. If the market in the UK is willing to pay £45 per MWh why should they go a lot below that? the simple fact that there was no shortage of submissions should show you that they believe that they can make a lot of profit at that amount.


second £40 per MWh= £0.04 per KWh~ at todays exchange=0.066 CAD KWH that is very close to what I am paying and very far from the two first statements I quoted.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not doubting those two statements, just trying to make you realize, what someone pays for electricity includes amortization, includes profit, includes distribution.....

When I install gear I don't ask my client to pay what I paid for the TV and I don't ask for what I am paying my employees per hour either (in both cases the prices I charge are more). Profitability is needed (though sometimes it can be exaggerated) so I am not bad mouthing it. Just realize that none pof the numbers you post are cost of production.


6) I get it you hate carbonbrief (can't be spinned to help your cause) but according to gridwatch

[Link: gridwatch.co.uk]

Renewables :This is the percent of the energy produced from renewable (wind + solar + hydroelectric + biomass)

also if you look at last month there were several times when wind was bigger than any other form and well over 40%. '

If their numbers are wrong tell me where they went wrong, can't you calculate it yourself if they are that off? Also the client I mentioned earlier 100% of his energy comes from solar. Why is that? because that is the only form of electricity production he installed. No matter what the % you like most a large part of it will be because of what is installed.

7) Until you start and take a good look and realize that the difference between Quebec and UK (or EU) is that we decided a long time ago to put a ceiling on the profits people involved with electricity can do while you guys decided to put a floor on the gouging and instead of blaming that idiocy you decided to blame the wind.
...
Post 127 made on Sunday November 10, 2019 at 16:42
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,410
On November 7, 2019 at 04:39, buzz said...
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

This is simply a cherry picked data point that makes the climate change discussion more difficult.

I don't see how it makes it more difficult. Isn't a complete misunderstanding from the casual observer the reason that it was name changed from "global warming" to "climate change"

let me put it this way (simple experiment)
take two glasses with equal amount of room temperature water, add an ice cube (of the same size) to each of the glasses. Now take a hot soldering iron and put it on the side of the ice of one of the glasses (we will call this glass B and the other glass A). wait a minute.

what happens?

the water in glass b will feal colder because the added heat means that more of the ice melted and added more cold water to the room temperature water.

global warming will mean some places might get more "wet" others more "dry" some places at some time will get colder other places at other times will get warmer.

The term global warming describes what is happening planet wise, the term climate change describes what happens locally.






.
...
Post 128 made on Sunday November 10, 2019 at 19:43
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,444
On November 9, 2019 at 19:18, Mac Burks (39) said...
Many people over the years have told me that "its impossible for humans to affect the planet". They back the statement up with facts like how the globe could easily handle more humans and that we are an insignificant "flea on the backside".

First thing is that a flea can actually cause you to die but thats neither here nor there.

Second thing is i always wonder how many of the naysayers have ever lived in a large city. In the suburbs or rural areas i can see how one might assume that the planet could clean itself up. In the city you learn very quickly how filthy things can get.

My current metric is my back yard. When i had one dog i could walk around the yard without worrying about stepping in dog poop. The lawn mower the rain the sun the snow handled the mess for me. Then we got a second dog. The yard could no longer handle the mess by itself. After a third dog the back yard is basically a toilet now that required biweekly cleaning.

I am not a climate scientist so i cant go into specifics. I am not a lawyer either. But...when i have to go to court i hire a lawyer because i know that they made it their business to learn the law. Same with climate scientists. If a climate scientist says (and most/99% of them are) "humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a livable condition for humanity" i am going to believe them until someone with similar scientific credentials tells me different. Politician or employee of a fossil fuel company or some guy like me who watched a YouTube video are not good sources for information about climate science.

At the end of the day...whats the worst thing that could happen if we cleaned up the planet? People would live longer healthier lives. The only people arguing against the clean up effort are those who stand to gain financially by continuing to pollute and those who just want to argue against the "other team".

Finally...my favorite argument is "who is going to pay for it?". The answer is quite simple...the same people who pay for bombs. The people who pay for roads and teachers. The people who enjoy using things like the 911 emergency service. Our tax dollars will be used to clean up the planet instead of paying for lung cancer treatment for our children because the air is poison.

As previously reported, your former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was astute enough to appreciate the inherent danger of governments paying for research when, in his farewell address, he said the following:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
 
"In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
 
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
 
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
 
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

 
"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
Much has been made of the recent claim from 11,000 'scientists' (published in the journal BioScience) that the planet is facing a climate emergency.  Is one aware, though, that ten years ago more than 30,000 American Scientists (including over 9,000 with PhD's) signed the Global Warming Petition Project [1] - which warns of there being no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like the Paris Accord are harmful, and hinder science?
 
Therein lies the first problems with your assertions:
 
"If a climate scientist says (and most/99% of them are) 'humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a liveable condition for humanity' I am going to believe them until someone with similar scientific credentials tells me different. Politician or employee of a fossil fuel company or some guy like me who watched a YouTube video are not good sources for information about climate science."
 
i). There is no 99% consensus claiming "humans are doing things that are making it impossible for earth to sustain a liveable condition for humanity".
 
ii). There is many a climate scientist willing to offer an alternative view to that of doom and gloom merchants (I've previously linked to some of their work), but one rarely hears from them because of the concerted efforts of the left-wing dominated media (and to some extent academe) to supress this information.
 
iii). One can discern the increasingly political nature of the argument when climate activists begin to throw the likes of Michael Mann under a bus. [2]
 
iv). Blogs and YouTube can be extremely helpful in providing and understanding of the issues involved, disseminating new research and highlighting the dubious practices being employed to maintain the myth of their being a climate/environmental emergency. 

The BioScience article is good example of the latter, [3] or as John Daly once pithily commented (in response to Ben Santer's claim of there being a discernible human influence on global climate), there’s "a discernible human influence on global climate change science". [4]

In essence therefore, assuming one heeds the advice of President Eisenhower, one can choose to believe those being handsomely rewarded for providing support for policy, or the independent thinkers seeking to further human understanding.
 
*

"At the end of the day...what’s the worst thing that could happen if we cleaned up the planet? People would live longer healthier lives. The only people arguing against the clean-up effort are those who stand to gain financially by continuing to pollute and those who just want to argue against the 'other team'".

 
I cannot speak for the USA, but in the UK air quality and life expectancy have improved tremendously since the 1960's.  That’s not to say we should be complacent, but as with most issues it's a trade-off.  What of, for example, the ethical implications and pollution created by the mining of rare earth materials for 'clean' renewables and EV's?





*
 
"Finally...my favourite argument is 'who is going to pay for it?'. The answer is quite simple...the same people who pay for bombs. The people who pay for roads and teachers. The people who enjoy using things like the 911 emergency service. Our tax dollars will be used to clean up the planet instead of paying for lung cancer treatment for our children because the air is poison."

 
A simplistic notion which offers no regard to the true cost: that more are likely to die from the 'cure' than the 'disease'.
 
[1] ‪[Link: petitionproject.org];
[2] ‪[Link: twitter.com];
[3] ‪[Link: joannenova.com.au];
[4] ‪[Link: remotecentral.com];
To get Brexit through Teresa May fell on her sword - and missed.
Post 129 made on Sunday November 10, 2019 at 19:48
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,444
On November 9, 2019 at 19:41, davidcasemore said...
Oh, why are you bothering? The facts are in: It's all a hoax started by China.

The deniers on here just cut & paste nonsense that they come across - most of which has been discredited long ago, or is meaningless to the subject at hand. There's a great article in the current Skeptical Inquirer magazine which puts a lot of these issues to rest and basically says we're all going to die really soon.

Now, I could cut & paste, or quote the article (which is filled with references) but, as Trevor Noah says: "Ain't no-one got time for that". Plus, I really don't care to waste my time trying to persuade somebody that their nonsense is just that.

One has the time to tell us one doesn't have the time to argue? Well, just give me the title of the article and I'll take it from there.
To get Brexit through Teresa May fell on her sword - and missed.
Post 130 made on Monday November 11, 2019 at 02:25
davidcasemore
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
2,976
On November 10, 2019 at 19:48, djy said...
One has the time to tell us one doesn't have the time to argue? Well, just give me the title of the article and I'll take it from there.

In what universe does telling you I don't have the time to argue take the same amount of time as arguing?

Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
November/December 2019
Volume 43 No. 6
Special Reports
"Hot Month, Hot Year, Hot Planet: Absorbing the Latest Climate News"

Also this:

[Link: nytimes.com]
Fins: Still Slamming' - One Trunk at a Time
Post 131 made on Monday November 11, 2019 at 15:35
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,444
On November 10, 2019 at 16:20, Anthony said...
unless really necessary I won't bother quoting you (I am guessing this post will be too long to begin with) and will just used your numeration if someone wants to go back to check etc.

Re. Glaciations.
Nitpick all you like; one has still failed to provide any substantive evidence to support your original assertion.

*

Re. The CCC and CCS.
Surely even you can determine the distinct difference between an atmospheric CO2 content of 410ppm and one of 500,000 (whatever) ppm, or has one not read any of my links?

*

Re. Missing the point.
My point was deliberately glib. It is you trying to conflate issues.

I'm fully appreciative of the fact that UK Government's "local" net-zero plans will have no discernible "global" effect. I'm also well of the fact that CO2 is an essential global life-giving element. It has, thus, always had "an effect", regardless of industrialisation.

You talk of a supposed irony, so how ironic would it be if in "man's" hubris the industrialised process of storing vast quantities of CO2 went awry?’

*

Re. Let me try this differently.
Apples and oranges again. Private investment is not the issue and market price for electricity is what the generators receive from the domestic suppliers not what consumers pay. I pay £0.18 per unit.

*

Re. The Carbon Brief and GridWatch.
I’ve already explained that renewables enjoy a guaranteed market, so it’s not unusual, when weather patterns align, for renewables to outperform fossil fuels.

At the time of writing, demand is 40GW with renewables supplying 38%, Gas 30%, Coal 5% and Nuclear 16%. If, however, demand were to rise, the wind was to drop, clouds were to cover the sun or any combination thereof, one cannot merely turn on more renewables - any change would need to be taken up by non-renewable sources. Furthermore:

i). One cannot compare a domestic solar/battery installation to a national grid.
ii). I’ve no reason to doubt GridWatch data. A few good days of renewables production does not mitigate the many times it fails to perform when most required.
iii). One has, once again, totally ignored wind and solar's inherent inefficiency and intermittency. Of the aforementioned 38%, wind and solar's contribution is a typical one-third of total installed capacity.
iii). One has, once again, totally ignored expert opinion on wind and solar's unsuitability as a primary source of power (also their respective environmental impacts).
iv). One has completely ignored my analysis of third-quarter power generation.
v). One has completely ignored my explanation of why I cannot confirm, or otherwise, The Carbon Brief's analysis.
vi). In light of the above, it appears to be the only person attempting to "spin" anything, is you.

*

Re. Profiteering.
And once again, even though I’ve provided expert testimony, one has still completely failed to understand the difference between a grid dominated by baseload/dispatchable hydro generation and one dominated by inefficient/intermittent renewables; the latter being imposed upon consumers, as a result of Government legislation, and not by choice.

In a free market, no one in their right mind would ever build a wind or solar farm, as they are, quite simply, not viable. Once the UK Government passed the Climate Change act, however, and the need for carbon-free sources of energy became more of an imperative, solar and wind, in the minds of three of our lesser abled Government ministers (Messrs Miliband, Huhne and Davey), became something of a sellers’ market. They firmly believed oil prices would continue to rise, making renewables appear more affordable, but what they hadn't accounted for was the fracking revolution in the USA completely undermining their plans.

It is not energy supply companies’ price gouging, it is wind and solar farm developers, with the assistance of Government largesse. Only now, some eleven years later, has the present Government acted to stem the unsustainable flow. The prices agreed for that new tranche of wind farms will, though, still be index-linked with constraint payments also remaining available during the inevitable periods of overproduction. In short, energy policy in the UK is a complete mess, as the following article aptly illustrates.

[Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]

It may also of interest to note that the wind industry in Germany is beginning to suffer the effects of recession.

[Link: notrickszone.com]
To get Brexit through Teresa May fell on her sword - and missed.
Post 132 made on Monday November 11, 2019 at 15:41
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
33,444
On November 11, 2019 at 02:25, davidcasemore said...
In what universe does telling you I don't have the time to argue take the same amount of time as arguing?

Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
November/December 2019
Volume 43 No. 6
Special Reports
"Hot Month, Hot Year, Hot Planet: Absorbing the Latest Climate News"

Also this:

[Link: nytimes.com]

"In what universe does telling you I don't have the time to argue take the same amount of time as arguing?"

Steady on, old chap. 'Twas merely a jest.

And thank you for the information; comments will be forthcoming.
To get Brexit through Teresa May fell on her sword - and missed.
Find in this thread:
Page 9 of 9


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse