Greta Thunberg's speech

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

Buying a product does not constitute permission to use a particular means of production. 

If that product is available ONLY from that technology then regardless your claims to the contrary, you CHOSE to benefit from the carbon "footprint" of the industry that made it available to you.  Go through any mental gymnastics you care to but it is what it is.

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, and then said:

If that product is available ONLY from that technology then regardless your claims to the contrary, you CHOSE to benefit from the carbon "footprint" of the industry that made it available to you.  Go through any mental gymnastics you care to but it is what it is.

We used coal-generated electricity to build the first wind turbines.  Even now, as long as coal-fired boilers remain on line, we are all using coal-fired electricity.  That's not a choice; it's how energy works.

Doug

[Doug1029]

  5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

There is no data to suggest we make the radical changes to preserve the planet that Greta is suggesting.

 

There are tens of thousands of research papers that present that data.

NOAA has over 10,000 datasets all by itself and there are thousands of others from around the world.  If NOAA isn't enough, there are the four HadleyCrutcher datasets,  There are 400-year instrumental records from several European cities.  Oklahoma's records go back to July 1, 1824.  The National Archives have around 800 reels of microfilm weather records.  The "Forts" dataset from the University of Illinois covers the entire American west from the 1820s to about 1908.

If you like, we can start a new thread on the science of global warming.  I'll look up the articles and post links to them as we discuss them.  OR:  you can look up articles and post links.  But lets keep it science-based.

Here is a list, of datasets, in case you'd like to look up the raw data.

Doug

 

Climate Data Station Address:

Arkansas:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/cd/cd.html?_page=0&jsessionid=D4C2532AA5328797F0F6866279717F27&state=AR&_target1=Next+>
Oklahoma:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/cd/cd.html;jsessionid=1572017C80BF6EEEE8626518DDBFD6CF?_page=0&jsessionid=1572017C80BF6EEEE8626518DDBFD6CF&state=OK&_target1=Next+>
State selection page:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/cd/cd.html

EV2 Station Data Address:
Oklahoma:
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/FORTS/inventory2.jsp

GHCN v3:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php

SCAR Reader:  
https://www.scar.org/data-products/ref-data-environmental-research/

ERSST v5:  
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v5

List of NOAA's datasets:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/climateindices/list/

PDSI address is:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/drought/pdsi2004/data-by-gridpt/
https://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp

Global Temperature Anomalies address is:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

Hadley-Crutcher 4 address is:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/

NOAA:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/34/4/pdsi/3/5/1895-2016?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/climate-change-factcheck-science.php

NOAA Sunspot record:
ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

American Sunspot Number Index:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/american/lists/list_aavso-arssn_yearly.txt
 

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

With the first graph it starts at 1950 and it tell you that, the second graph you can see the repeating pattern and it looks nothing out of place. There is a cycle going on there.

 

You have to remember RabidMongoose, that some here are brick walls, or nothing will make them give up the cult, end is nigh idea.

And to strengthen your case, 500m years ago we had a 12 or more % increase in CO2, which let to a substaintal increase in animal species, this video tells it better.

But l agree that things are catastrophic,....catastrophic stupidity!

[Only_]

11 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Not taking sides in this debate, but I don't think we will ever completely outlaw meat.  We don't need to.  And there are sources of meat that don't cut into grain availability and thus should be kept in production.

If we ALL ate less meat — say a couple of times a week at most — that could make well-raised meat possible for all because meat consumption would be much lower overall. Or half of us could go vegetarian. Even if people don't want to go full-on vegetarian, there are health enticements to lowering your meat consumption. Meat production was sustainable for millennia, since there were many, many fewer people, and the waste and emissions that animals produced weren't impactful enough to be a problem.  But times have changed. The global livestock industry now produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined.

Edited November 16, 2019 by crookedspiral

[tmcom]

And another!

The end is nigh, lol, l would say that the faithful need to go and live in a cave, since they are only embarrassing themselves here?

[Alchopwn]

20 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Second, we need to start bringing down the CO2 levels.  That can't start until we get emissions under control, so we're looking at 2040 or later.  That COULD be expensive with current technologies, but we can invent new technologies.  There are some promising starts.

What scares me is the number of forests that burned in the last 2 years and how much carbon was released.  I am concerned that if this continues 2040 might well be too late, and we might have done too much damage to the phytoplankton that produce 70%+ of our oxygen.

20 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Why does the right think we have to solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology?

The Right don't think that.  What the Right thinks is that their buddies are heavily invested in fossil fuels, and that transitioning to clean energy is not what fossil fuel billionaires want, so they run campaigns to dissemble, disinform, and basically disrespect the scientists who have been warning of the impending catastrophe since the 1970s and even before, as if ignoring the truth will somehow make it untrue.  If you understand the sort of campaign that cigarette companies have been running for decades to dodge responsibility for the cancer they cause, then you will see the familiar patterns.  If not, you may enjoy the movie Thank You for Smoking, as it dissects the mentality and methods of a spin doctor for big tobacco.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Alchopwn

[Space Commander Travis]

11 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

and basically disrespect the scientists who have been warning of the impending catastrophe since the 1970s and even before,

Surely there was much more Co2 emissions (taking for now the assumption that it's entirely Mankind that is responsible for Co2 emissions, and it is Destroying Planet Earth) in the industrialized world many years ago, up until the 1960s there was no awareness of any such thing as emissions from industry and traffic and so on, look how common smogs were up until the 1970s. So, assuming it is Man-Made Emissions that are Destroying Planet Earth, that destroying is surely traceable back to the 1970s and before. What we're emitting now, in the West, is really a drop in the ocean compared with what we used to. The amount of traffic may be much greater, but vehicles are so much cleaner now, and emissions from traffic are in any case a small proportion of Co2 emissions. So rather than condescendingly lecturing us that it's all our fault and we're all to blame and we're destroying planet earth and outlawing the evil Internal Combustion Engine, Science would be doing something far more useful for humanity if they were to accept that it began to happen a long time ago, before anyone was aware of any such thing, and accepting that as a fact help people in vulnerable locations to prepare and acclimatize to it. 

[Alchopwn]

42 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Surely there was much more Co2 emissions (taking for now the assumption that it's entirely Mankind that is responsible for Co2 emissions, and it is Destroying Planet Earth) in the industrialized world many years ago, up until the 1960s there was no awareness of any such thing as emissions from industry and traffic and so on, look how common smogs were up until the 1970s. 

There are a number of factors you are not taking into account here.  Firstly, however much the world industrialized during the coal burning era, it is a tiny fraction compared to the extended worldwide growth after WW2.  It's true that London had appalling pollution in the 19th century, and the automobile helped get rid of streets swamped by horse dung, and a River Thames that was a giant open sewer, and air so smoggy one could barely breathe.  Now there are plenty of cities in the world with terrible pollution, as they industrialize and post-industrialize.  Now to suggest that people back in the day were unaware of the problem would be incorrect.  Perhaps they lacked accurate ways to measure quite how destructive their industrial behavior was being, but they knew there was a problem and eventually took steps as communities to mitigate the problems.  Did this improve as new technologies came online to measure things more accurately?  Yes, of course, but to say there was no evidence of there being a problem prior would be wrong.

51 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

So, assuming it is Man-Made Emissions that are Destroying Planet Earth, that destroying is surely traceable back to the 1970s and before. What we're emitting now, in the West, is really a drop in the ocean compared with what we used to. 

This statement is somewhat correct and also somewhat wrong.  Presently a good deal of the world's pollution problem is indeed not caused by developed nations and their emissions, and we have been improving what we do.  The bulk of the pollution problem is actually coming from developing countries like India and China (tho arriving in Shanghai one might question that status, as Shanghai looks pretty developed, but there is still plenty of underdeveloped bumblescum to be had in hinterland China).  Now, to the claim that we in the west are emitting less pollution, well, while there is some movement to reduce pollution, most of the impetus to do so has come from Green movements, and not from industry, which considers that to be an externality they are being forced to pay for (boo hoo, poor corporations can't pollute like they used to).  For all that, your average person in the developed world uses a LOT of energy, and that means a LOT of emissions pollution, and certainly more than is the case in much of the underdeveloped world.

59 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

The amount of traffic may be much greater, but vehicles are so much cleaner now, and emissions from traffic are in any case a small proportion of Co2 emissions. 

Vehicles are improving, true, but only under pressure from the global demand for environmental responsibility fostered by Green movements.  Most of the improvement has been in improving fuel efficiency.  Of course this is a good thing, but the goals are not being set in this fashion.  The goals are being set by Global CO2 measurement.  If we go over that 2% threshold we are all in the gigantic poo.

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 So rather than condescendingly lecturing us that it's all our fault and we're all to blame and we're destroying planet earth and outlawing the evil Internal Combustion Engine

Because I am doing this?  Have you noticed that this amounts to a false accusation?  My problem is that the world's forests are burning down at an alarming rate and that this is causally linked to the CO2 levels.  Have I not made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ? Or are you simply being rude and not reading my actual post?  Show me where I said we should ban the internal combustion engine... Go ahead.  I know you can't because I never put that argument.  That argument is entirely a product of your own internal monologue, and what does that say about you?  Much more than it says about me, I'm sure.  I actually think internationally, given the timeframe, humans  are making decent progress in the area of clean transport technology, including cleaner internal combustion, but we need to keep doing better, because the 2% threshold is looming.

1 hour ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Science would be doing something far more useful for humanity if they were to accept that it began to happen a long time ago, before anyone was aware of any such thing, and accepting that as a fact help people in vulnerable locations to prepare and acclimatize to it. 

Science has been warning people for a very long time that this was on the way, and complacent people who didn't want to believe the findings elected to ignore it and hope it would somehow go away, or wasn't true.  The complacent people were wrong.  You apparently still want to be one of them.  Are societies around the world going to be affected and will they need help coping with the inevitable disasters?  Of course.  To say that science is somehow to blame for this is wrong.  Science has been ringing the warning bell for 60 years, and ever louder.  It was industry that was to blame for the present situation, because it wasn't profitable to listen to the advice that could have saved us a lot of pain back when we could have made a difference.  To say that we lack the technology to roll back our CO2 emissions is wrong.  We know how to do it, we just lack the political will, because we have dragging anchors like yourself we need to abandon Dumbledore.  You're yesterday's man, with yesterday's dumb ideas, and you're wrong about a great deal on this matter.  Your comments reveal that you are most interested in finding ever more excuses for doing nothing while the world burns down around you.  

[TigerBright19]

Look what somebody has done to the new Christmas commercial.  

 

 

 

[tmcom]

https://mashable.com/article/greta-thunberg-rough-seas-ocean/

We are enjoying it, they won't enjoy it if the boat gets swamped and they have to tell the rescue helicopter to go away, since it uses too much fuel.

So Greta and her crew, endure two weeks of mild to extreme waves, or take a plane flight in comfort, and be in New York in 8 to 10 hours?

 

Lets see two to three days of being sick, and watching huge waves, hoping that every night when you go to bed that there aren't any freak, tidal waves about, or an 8 hour plane flight, where the most distressing thing is the chicken keiv, and whether you should have ordered the orange juice?

 

She is taking dumb, unnecessary risks, for her cult, and this reminds me of other parents who let their highly motivated under 20 year old, (from memory) try to fly solo around the world, he crashed into the ocean and died, as l said dumb risk.

But her a.....hole backers, will most likey turn her into a martar, and blame you know, and get even more push.

Sad world.

Edited November 18, 2019 by tmcom

[SHaYap]

State of emergency,

Say arrivederci Venice... 

Quote

 

[00.03:04]

~

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, third_eye said:

State of emergency,

Say arrivederci Venice... 

[00.03:04]

~

It has had worse!

 

[SHaYap]

7 minutes ago, tmcom said:

It has had worse!

 

Well, that's comforting to know... What makes you think this won't end up worse than the worst? 

~

[+and-then]

Venice could benefit from a good "flushing".  I live about 10 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and look forward to the day when my property becomes beachfront  

[Space Commander Travis]

On 11/18/2019 at 4:37 PM, third_eye said:

State of emergency,

Say arrivederci Venice... 

[00.03:04]

~

See this is the whole argument, even if you are a follower of the Cult of Climate Change and believe that this is entirely due to what we have done, us ourselves, right now, and it isn't the result of something that may have been done in the past and there's nothing we can do about it now, wouldn't all the Scientists and Experts be doing something rather more useful by saying that ok, possibly sea levels are showing a general trend towards rising, but very very gradually, so perhaps Civilization will just have to adapt to it, rather than just wringing their collective hands and literally trying to hold back the tide. And perhaps some places that have always been prone to flooding might be increasingly so, and being helpful in advising ways to adapt to it and to protect places that are vulnerable (and perhaps even accept that some places may just have to be left to the waves (but probably not Venice)),because that's what's always happened through history. Rather than acting like priests from the time of the Inquisition and lecturing everyone that we're all paying the price for our sin and this is all our fault ,because that's rubbish, because if it is due to the actions of Man it began a long time before anyone knew anything about it and there's not much we can do about something that's already happened can we. 

[SHaYap]

3 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

See this is the whole argument...

Look in the faces of the young 'uns and present your argument to them, as for myself, I have no such lofty delusions that I can solve anything except do the best I can with what I have.

Stop polluting, it will help make what's avoidable or unavoidable much more pleasant to live with, there's no magic bullets or emergency switch to flip. 

You don't need to believe anyone or anything, you don't have to convince everyone to not to either.

~

[Doug1029]

On 11/16/2019 at 8:13 AM, Alchopwn said:

What scares me is the number of forests that burned in the last 2 years and how much carbon was released.  I am concerned that if this continues 2040 might well be too late, and we might have done too much damage to the phytoplankton that produce 70%+ of our oxygen.

Forest Inventory and Analysis (USFS) scientists recently did a comparative study of Oregon's public vs. private forests.  Public forests are being allowed to age, ostensibly to eventually produce new old-growth.  Supposedly, old growth timber stands sequester more carbon than managed stands.  BUT:  that's not what they found.  Old growth stands have six times the losses from fire and insects that managed stands have.  So maybe we need to cut MORE timber, not less.

Disclaimer:  that was only in Oregon's big timber.  Other stands, like Colorado's ponderosa pines and the east's oak-hickory forests may not do this.  More research needed.

 

I was at the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Stakeholders Science Meeting (how's THAT for a long-winded name?) this last week.  There were about 300 people there, mostly USFS foresters from the FIA program, but there were also some university people, including three undergrads who gave presentations.  There was a sizable international contingent, including people from Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Nepal, China (both of them) and Vietnam.  The FIA is tasked with tracking carbon flows through forests and reporting the results back to those working with climate change.  It is their job to answer the questions:  how much carbon is being taken up by trees?  How much is released back into the air by plant respiration?  How much goes into the soil?  How much is cut and becomes lumber?  How much lumber gets scrapped and buried in landfills?  How much of that decomposes into CO2 or methane?  FIA does this world-wide, excluding Europe and Hawaii.  Europe is doing its own and I guess somebody just forgot about Hawaii; although, there are lots of volunteers to collect the data when Hawaii finally gets included.

There are now over a million trees in the database from all over continental US and Alaska.  More are being added by various national inventories.

Even Russia is getting in on it.  My daughter spent six months in Russia.  She lived with a host family.  They got talking about What does your Dad do?  My daughter answered that I was an inventory forester.  What does an inventory forester do?  He counts trees.  That's when she learned that "counting trees" is a euphemism for "getting sent to Siberia."  Oops.  Lost in translation.

 

Though politicians dither, there are whole agencies dedicated to monitoring climate change, CO2 capture and sequestration and keeping track of how fast it is progressing.

 

I'm one of the old-school inventory foresters who figures that you can't count trees without getting mud on your boots.  To determine what diseases are attacking trees, you usually have to stand beside the tree and look at it.  I see a forest of sawlogs with green things at the top (I think those green things are dollar bills.).  One of the problems with on-the-ground inventories is that some research plots overlap boundaries, falling partly in forests, partly in lakes,  or partly in an oak stand and partly in a corn field.  That sort of problem creates all sorts of analytical problems.  That's where I come in:  I find solutions for "slopover" problems.  Beginning this coming year, I will write a series of papers on how to solve various versions of the slopover problem.  It is part of an effort to standardize climate-monitoring on a world-wide basis.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 11/18/2019 at 7:53 PM, tmcom said:

It has had worse!

 

Lets remember that when most of those buildings in Venice were built, they stood on piles at a height up to 60 feet above the water.  Since then, those piles have been sinking into the mud so that now, sinking piles are meeting rising seas.  Some of those bottom floors now being flooded once stood 60+ feet above sea level.  Those pictures you keep coming up with do not show these histories.

Doug

[tmcom]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/greta-thunberg-at-davos-forum-talks-tree-planting-after-trump/11888208

Trump gives an inspiring speech yesterday and gets an angry, mixed up child b****ing about it.

He also said what needed to be said, since we are all fed up with these brainwashed lemmings, destroying our economies, ignoring the obvious, and telling us they are right.