Climate Change

[ralis]

2 hours ago, windwalker said:

explains what climate sensitivity is 

 

 

 

More gaslighting foisted on a gullible cult by the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil fuel funded think tank.

[windwalker]

2 minutes ago, thelerner said:

I get that.. it's just I'd rather have a couple hundred more years of civilization then do nothing and lose that extra time because people played politics instead of listening to the science. 

 

like this thread...right?

 

3rd, 2nd world developing countries will insist that they be allowed to move through their own industrialization process.

 

Was in Korea  when  "SEOUL, South Korea — The Han River, once so fouled by industry and sewage that dead fish lined its banks, has come alive again with carp, catfish and waterfowl."

 

They cleaned it up, when they reached  a certain point in their development. 

 

Developed first world countries will develop technologies that hopefully others will adopt to slow done some of the harmful effects they may encounter as they move through their own industrial development. 

 

Climate change is based on change regardless of causative factors or who, what it benefits or not.

Those talking about the dao, "way" here somehow don't feel whats going on is part of a natural process .

 

There is nothing thankfully that can be done that will change anything much by any one country.... 

 

 

 

[windwalker]

11 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

More gaslighting foisted on a gullible cult by the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil fuel funded think tank.

 

 

gaslighting, simple words from a simple view point,  one that can not talk to what was said...

 

must be something to do with the Russians 

 

on the other hand 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

gaslighting, simple words from a simple view point,  one that can not talk to what was said...

 

must be something to do with the Russians 

 

That is my comment and yet you fail to comment rationally on any link or video you post here. Why is that? You are out of your league and have not proven you even understand the Quantum Mechanics paper that you posted except, you find it interesting. I have commented and written down my remarks here. Trolling is your forte!

[windwalker]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

the Quantum Mechanics paper that you posted except, you find it interesting.

 

 

If you knew anything about quantum mechanics you would know why I posted it....you reacted as expected because of lack of claimed knowledge....another poster to their credit got it...that person I would say has some understanding of it...

 

why is that anyone or information you do not agree with you label,  presenting no independent thought of your own. 

why not address the clip I just posted concerning the data used... and why its not good science 

[ralis]

6 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

If you knew anything about quantum mechanics you would know why I posted it....you reacted as expected because of lack of claimed knowledge....another poster to their credit got it...that person I would say has some understanding of it...

 

why is that anyone or information you do not agree with you label,  presenting no independent thought of your own. 

why not address the clip I just posted concerning the data used... and why its not good science 

 

Actually, I understood it and assumed you did not which is why I posted on probabilities in which you fail to understand and are only positing absolutes.

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Actually, I understood it and assumed you did not which is why I posted on probabilities in which you fail to understand and are only positing absolutes.

 

you have little idea what anyone understands or not.

nor do you then or now know why it was posted for...

 

you did make my point although I would have thought that someone one else would have 

tried to make the same point but they caught it,,,they got it...

 

anyway care to explain why the data according to the clip was manipulated

to fit models used to explain different studies.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[windwalker]

another clip on misleading data

 

 

[thelerner]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

like this thread...right?

 

3rd, 2nd world developing countries will insist that they be allowed to move through their own industrialization process.

 

Was in Korea  when  "SEOUL, South Korea — The Han River, once so fouled by industry and sewage that dead fish lined its banks, has come alive again with carp, catfish and waterfowl."

 

They cleaned it up, when they reached  a certain point in their development. 

 

Developed first world countries will develop technologies that hopefully others will adopt to slow done some of the harmful effects they may encounter as they move through their own industrial development. 

 

Climate change is based on change regardless of causative factors or who, what it benefits or not.

Those talking about the dao, "way" here somehow don't feel whats going on is part of a natural process .

 

There is nothing thankfully that can be done that will change anything much by any one country....

 

 

Seems to me there are 'elephants' in the room.  The countries in the top ten that produce the most waste and pollution.  Leading by example can persuade other countries.  The US has made big strides in dealing with choking pollution.  Where we had acid rain killing forests, dead rivers, a great lake so polluted it caught fire, cities covered by smog.. we've made great strides and there's more to do.  

 

Now its China, India, Russia, Mexico that have some of the most polluted cities in the world.  Degrading lives and costing people years. 

 

I'm not really aiming at Global Warming, I'm after cleaning up the environment, intelligent regulations and the benefits behind them.  Not after radical change, but smart changes.  Yeah they'll have costs and also long term benefits.   We can't forfeit our future for junk and immediate profit. 

 

Cleaning up the planet, making systems sustainable has to be our world's next moon landing.  Then if the planet wipes us out, it won't be our fault, we went down fighting.

[ralis]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

another clip on misleading data

 

 

 

Fred Singer? I read his junk science years ago and FYI he is paid by the Heartland Institute which is funded in part by fossil fuels. 

 

I watched and listened to part of the video and Singer keeps stating that the scientific consensus of human activity as the cause of AGW is "fake". He used that term several times along with, "I will try to convince you that this warming is fake." That does not lend credibility given that such statements are condescending and gaslighting.

 

Science and Environmental Policy Project which was founded by Singer and his wife was in collusion with APCO and Associates which was responsible for claiming that tobacco smoke did not cause cancer.

 

Quote

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) was an organization run by S. Fred Singer and his wife Candace Crandall - but with the help of a large number of corrupted (and some gullible) scientists. It was established as a climate change denier organization by Philip Morris's private public relations firm APCO & Associates. This happened at much the same time that APCO were also establishing the infamous junk-science organisation known as TASSC - The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition - (eventually run by Steven J Milloy).

These were two related organisations, serving the same end. They were anti-science, in that they deliberately distorted the facts about a range of scientific research for the sole purpose of calling into question the claims of scientists to know that health and the environment were being harmed by air-pollutants. They accused the scientists of over-reacting, bias, scare-mondering, and just plain incompetence -- and TASSC in particular hid its tobacco industry connections by attacking a wide range of regulate substances - DDT, Alar, breast implants, etc.

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project

 

https://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Edited February 26, 2019 by ralis

[ralis]

10 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Seems to me there are 'elephants' in the room.  The countries in the top ten that produce the most waste and pollution.  Leading by example can persuade other countries.  The US has made big strides in dealing with choking pollution.  Where we had acid rain killing forests, dead rivers, a great lake so polluted it caught fire, cities covered by smog.. we've made great strides and there's more to do.  

 

Now its China, India, Russia, Mexico that have some of the most polluted cities in the world.  Degrading lives and costing people years. 

 

I'm not really aiming at Global Warming, I'm after cleaning up the environment, intelligent regulations and the benefits behind them.  Not after radical change, but smart changes.  Yeah they'll have costs and also long term benefits.   We can't forfeit our future for junk and immediate profit. 

 

Cleaning up the planet, making systems sustainable has to be our world's next moon landing.  Then if the planet wipes us out, it won't be our fault, we went down fighting.

 

In what way do you propose to deal with the methane hydrate problem? Voidisyinyang has written extensively on the methane problem earlier in this thread. Methane hydrate breaks down to CH4 which is a gas and will exasperate AGW. Methane hydrate is trapped in pockets located in unstable geological areas.

Edited February 26, 2019 by ralis

[Jonesboy]

59 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

In what way do you propose to deal with the methane hydrate problem? Voidisyinyang has written extensively on the methane problem earlier in this thread. Methane hydrate breaks down to CH4 which is a gas and will exasperate AGW. Methane hydrate is trapped in pockets located in unstable geological areas.

 

That’s right up there with my worry about super volcanoes.

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

Fred Singer? I read his junk science years ago and FYI he is paid by the Heartland Institute which is funded in part by fossil fuels. 

 

 

 

I see.

 

 it amounts to any science presented, clips presented with a different viewpoint are fraudulent fake or backed by industries that support them.

 

All information that you and some others present is not to be questioned.  

 

Not buying it.  Climate has changed, will change, and is changing.

 

Seems to be cyclic regardless of what are said to be causative agents.

[ralis]

4 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

I see.

 

 it amounts to any science presented, clips presented with a different viewpoint are fraudulent fake or backed by industries that support them.

 

All information that you and some others present is not to be questioned.  

 

Not buying it.  Climate has changed, will change, and is changing.

 

Seems to be cyclic regardless of what are said to be causative agents.

 

You have bought the Frank Luntz propaganda hook line and sinker. 

[windwalker]

11 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

You have bought the Frank Luntz propaganda hook line and sinker. 

 

Only in your mind.

 

Make a case for what changed or did not in the data presented

[windwalker]

another clip on misleading data

lets see what some can say about the presenter 

 

 

[flowing hands]

Vested interest manipulate facts to show what they want. Take your average medico legal claim the so called expert witnesses, the doctors never seem to find anything wrong with the claimant if they can get away with it. For it is the insurance companies who pay their wages. Any claimant who gets a rightful payout because of a report done by a surgeon will result in that surgeon not being used again! 

 

Same with scientist and politicians.

[rene]

Same with forum posters.

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, rene said:

Same with forum posters.

 

not all.

 

some are very open only seeking understanding by which a difference of opinion is arrived at.

they "we" will post or show where what is said,  does not quite align with one's own views

seeking clarification of opposing views. 

 

Climate changes,  has changed, will change, is changing

 

currently living in an area called the "gorge"  very beautiful for those out to see some very

dramatic views shaped by nature so long ago.  

 

I dont quite understand the alarmist, who it seems are attempting use data that some have questions about as to causative agents. 

what was the causative agent so long ago that created the "gorge"  if it happened in today's time ,

would there be those trying to stop it? 

 

As it is due  to the Bonneville Dam:

 

" Creating electricity was a sensitive issue at the time of the Bonneville Dam's construction, which was funded with federal dollars. The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration wanted the electricity produced to be a public source of power and prevent energy monopolies.

 

Advocates for private sale of the electricity were opposed to this, and they did not want the government to interfere. In 1937"

 

Personally I find the data sets interesting, so far no one here has disputed that in fact they were changed to fit a narrative. 

 

 

 

 

edited for clarity, 

Edited February 27, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

7 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

 

I see.

 

 it amounts to any science presented, clips presented with a different viewpoint are fraudulent fake or backed by industries that support them.

 

All information that you and some others present is not to be questioned.  

 

Not buying it.  Climate has changed, will change, and is changing.

 

Seems to be cyclic regardless of what are said to be causative agents.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

Quote

OSLO (Reuters) - Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

Well if there's enough profit driving the "product" then science really doesn't matter.

I mean we know nicotine-tobacco-cigarettes cause cancer but "overseas" sales are booming thanks to the US enforcement of "opening markets" for big business.

Quote

 

“Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals,” the U.S.-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change of satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

 

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.

 

Wait a second? Scientists are now forced to become activists calling for socialistic policy changes!!

 

haha. Too little too late!!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0424-x.epdf

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

 

[voidisyinyang]

54 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

Quote

 

All the while, the aerosol-laden clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, thereby cooling the Earth's overall temperature.

To what extent do aerosols cool down our environment? To date, all estimates were unreliable because it was impossible to separate the effects of rising winds which create the clouds, from the effects of aerosols which determine their composition. Until now.

 

Rosenfeld and his colleague Yannian Zhu from the Meteorological Institute of Shaanxi Province in China developed a new method that uses satellite images to separately calculate the effect of vertical winds and aerosol cloud droplet numbers. They applied this methodology to low-lying cloud cover above the world's oceans between the Equator and 40S. With this new method, Rosenfeld and his colleagues were able to more accurately calculate aerosols' cooling effects on the Earth's energy budget. And, they discovered that aerosols' cooling effect is nearly twice higher than previously thought.

 

However, if this is true then how come the earth is getting warmer, not cooler? For all of the global attention on climate warming, aerosol pollution rates from vehicles, agriculture and power plants is still very high. For Rosenfeld, this discrepancy might point to an ever deeper and more troubling reality. "If the aerosols indeed cause a greater cooling effect than previously estimated, then the warming effect of the greenhouse gases has also been larger than we thought, enabling greenhouse gas emissions to overcome the cooling effect of aerosols and points to a greater amount of global warming than we previously thought," he shared.

 

The fact that our planet is getting warmer even though aerosols are cooling it down at higher rates than previously thought brings us to a Catch-22 situation: Global efforts to improve air quality by developing cleaner fuels and burning less coal could end up harming our planet by reducing the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, and by doing so, diminishing aerosols' cooling ability to offset global warming.

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122104611.htm?fbclid=IwAR0uCg37PL4fi9ahpFLKTDN-0dSfEsDbCRamZlH77mCnSyGeHnBTEDDOdYk

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

59 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Quote

 

"The ocean acidification we're seeing today is unprecedented," said Major, "even when viewed through the lens of the past 300 million years, a result of the very fast rates at which we're changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans."

In the last hundred years, rising carbon dioxide from human activities has lowered ocean pH by 0.1 unit, an acidification rate at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that pH will fall another 0.2 units by 2100, raising the possibility that we may soon see ocean changes similar to those observed during the PETM.

 

More catastrophic events have happened on Earth before, but perhaps not as quickly.

 

The study finds two other analogs for modern day ocean acidification--the extinctions triggered by massive volcanism at the end of the Permian and Triassic eras, about 252 million and 201 million years ago, respectively.

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307145430.htm

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the four years 2014‐2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement

E. G. Nisbet

M. R. Manning

E. J. Dlugokencky

R. E. Fisher

D. Lowry

S. E. Michel

C. Lund Myhre

S. M. Platt

G. Allen

P. Bousquet

R. Brownlow

M. Cain

J. L. France

… See all authors

First published: 05 February 2019

https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006009

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GB006009

 

New study: We’re outpacing the most radical climate event we know of

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/new-study-were-outpacing-the-most-radical-climate-event-we-know-of/

 

Quote

"To put this in perspective," the authors write, "for PETM carbon emission rates to approach those generated currently from fossil fuels, the PETM onset would have to have occurred over a period of 200 to 500 years." Instead, it took over 100 times that. That makes the current rate of change unprecedented in what we've uncovered of the geological record. The Earth could have done something this rapid in the past, but we haven't found any indication that it has.

 

[Earl Grey]

On 2/16/2019 at 6:15 AM, flowing hands said:

Today Many school Children bunked off school in protest of not enough is being done about this ever approaching disaster. We are losing nearly 1000 species every month. There are currently 36% human population, 60% cattle and domesticated animals and 4% wild animals inhabit this earth. Yes its shocking. The sea has also lost massive amounts of species also. As Dao followers what do you think we can do to help this disaster? Give us some ideas to help solve this problem. I know what I have done, but I want to hear what others think. 

 

I am responding to this original post because I want to speak to the spirit of the intended dialogue here. But I will not hesitate to say that it is sad that speaking to the original intention of this thread would take it off topic from what this thread has broken down into, when perhaps the arguments on whether climate change is real or not really should split off into its own thread while the OP seriously could have been salvaged with a little moderation. 

 

What can we do to help this disaster? In my own work in the nonprofit/NGO/sustainability field, I've seen both bottom-up and top-bottom initiatives, and it's not just a trendy thing amongst the youth/"Millennials" and such, it's practical and diminishes the carbon footprint. 

 

I am online much less than the global average, and don't use my phone other than for calls and texts, which I can count how many calls and texts I get on one hand in a week because people know I don't like answering my phone or texting--charging the phone, computer, tablet--all of that is a drain. I get my news from broadsheets and because I like reading newspapers instead of off a screen, and they are much easier to recycle. 

 

Commuting is more practical than buying a car, whether it's an electric or hybrid, and cheaper in any case. I generally walk more.

 

When I lived in Tanzania, we generally tried to use the same bottles again and again as often as possible because in the rural countryside, the only way to rid ourselves of waste was to burn it, and nobody wanted to burn it and also risk bringing the entire village down during a dry season. 

 

When I lived in Indonesia and the Philippines, people were known to save bottles and fill them up with sand and create little ecological houses with them--sadly, a lot of that waste came from China, Canada, and Korea, as the Philippines in particular is treated as a dumping ground. Sri Lanka's project had us take some scrap and tires from the war and painted them to make into a children's playground.

 

During the day, in one apartment I lived in, I don't turn on the lights unless necessary, and I've been using candlelight more often when writing or reading at night. In another apartment that had no sunlight, I don't even need to turn on the lights because my qigong practices have my eyes closed often (Sleeping Qigong and Flying Phoenix), and mantra practice as well. I get all the light I need from the sun or candles. 

 

I don't eat a lot of meat, but I still enjoy it, and generally, I do my shopping once a week at the organic farmers market because I don't like the hormones or the diet and conditions most animals live in for conventional merchants. 

 

 

One of my organizations, Shumei, does a lot of natural agriculture, which has brought tasty and organic food with neither pesticides nor fertilizer or crop rotation. 

 

There are plenty more actions that I take to minimize my impact that are second nature because it just becomes practical and routine rather than an inconvenience to people's broken pedestal of convenience in the modern world of apps and service. I don't even use straws or lids anymore when getting a drink, bring my own metal straw and chopsticks and spork, and the list goes on. 

 

The earth is my home and I am a tenant and a roommate who is trying to make the place nice for me and for whomever moves in when I'm gone. Whether they appreciate it or listen to me is another story, but at least I do my part.