Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

Cooter said:
Climate deniers are getting rich like Al Gore? I'm not seeing that trail of money.
Click to expand...

Seriously.

Also Google the recent story abut Gore's estate using up to 34% more energy than the average America home. Now there's an 'inconvenient truth'.
 
steingar said:
The only saving grace to any of this is I never had any children. I feel sorry for yours that have to live in this broken world we've left them.
Click to expand...

This gave me a pretty good laugh.....but then I realized you might be serious. You must be a really unhappy guy. It's not the climate that gives me worries for my children. It's people like you who would be willing to ruin their lives in the name of saving it.

BTW, my kids have given me a greater joy than any thing else this world could offer. They also give me perspective. Plunging through life alone fearful of whatever doom may await us doesn't sound like a path I want to be on.
 
People forget that the earth has had many ice ages followed by warming before man and his evil combustion industry was here.
It will continue to change NO matter what we humans do! Our predictions have been less than reliable to say the least
 
steingar said:
The one thing I can say with utter confidence about the current spate of warming is it is unprecedented to our understanding. And in case anyone is interested, we've already bolluxed the oceans. CO2 has to reach chemical equilibrium with water by making carbonic acid. That's what it does. The CO2 we've dumped in the atmosphere will lower oceanic pH levels to the point of killing anything that sequesters calcium, and that includes anything with a shell, i.e. most of the world's zooplankton. That's only the basis of the pelagic food chain. And please don't tell me that the latter is just wild speculation because I ran the numbers myself.
Click to expand...
Now you just need to convince all the inhabitants of mother earth to go cold turkey on the CO2 and you should be golden. :rolleyes:
 
1RTK1 said:
People forget that the earth has had many ice ages followed by warming before man and his evil combustion industry was here.
It will continue to change NO matter what we humans do! Our predictions have been less than reliable to say the least
Click to expand...
Left coasters are not supposed to say such things...shame!!
 
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means doing both.

Stephen Schneider
Climate Scientist
 
Cooter said:
Climate deniers are getting rich like Algore? I'm not seeing that trail of money.
Click to expand...
Doh. All the fossil fuel burning and producing industries would be happy and richer if the results showed that they had no effect on the climate. You're the one who can't see that some on both sides are guilty of the same thing.
 
denverpilot said:
How far back did it go, what was his motivation?

In other words, people don't always get caught the first time. And I assume he did it for money?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it was for money. There are people that deeply care about this issue and are willing to risk their reputations if it means getting change in the world. Fudging the numbers bolsters the theory, which gets the populace and politicians to do something. Unfortunately for these misguided people they can't see that when they get caught (and they will) for every one step forward, they take their cause two steps backward.

Humans are dumb. they really are. All around on both sides of the issue. It kind of makes me want to post a link to Frank Zappa's "Dumb all over", but it doesn't totally apply here as it's more about religious intolerance.
 
Dunno how much carbon sequestration can absorb the additional CO2. The US has something like 3% tallgrass prairie left (visit the Flint Hills in KS sometime). That stuff could bury lots of carbon. How much affect has modern agriculture contributed to either CO2 released from soil or CO2 not being sucked out of the air?
 
Everskyward said:
Doh. All the fossil fuel burning and producing industries would be happy and richer if the results showed that they had no effect on the climate. You're the one who can't see that some on both sides are guilty of the same thing.
Click to expand...
:crazy: :cheers:
 
azblackbird said:
Anybody wanna trip up a climate scientist?

Ask them what they would consider the ideal CO2 ppm, and what the temperature of the earth should be.

I guarantee you will never get a straight answer. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

Below 450 PPM and below 2 degrees increase. This has been a consistent message for many years.
 
The problem with this type discussion online is that it's useless. People aren't even on different sides of the same argument. It's different arguments being shot over each other in the air.

You have people that:

a) Don't think that the earth is warming at all
b) Think that it is warming, and don't think it's man made
c) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, and don't think it's a problem
d) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and think that we should do something about it
e) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and don't give a crap
f) People who don't understand the difference between weather and climate

I'm in the (e) category. I live in a cold state, and high enough about sea level that even if all the ice in the world melts it doesn't affect me. As long as there is ice left for my Brandy, I'm good. I used to care, but since the people who are most affected by this tend to be the people who are most against doing anything about it, so be it.
 
Last edited:
Cooter said:
So are you saying that the earth was on track for catastrophic cooling in the 70s, but then the measures taken were too effective and we are now headed in the opposite direction temperature wise?
Click to expand...

The Pacific Northwest has been engulfed in a cloud of smoke for the last 10 days or so (forest fires in Canada). Had a fun METAR this morning of 1SM HZ FU CLR. As a result though our temperature was 5 to 10 degrees lower than it would have been... which was nice since we would have been in a heatwave otherwise, but it's not a way to live.

I can't imagine how people lived in Los Angeles for so long under similar circumstances, and I can understood why people were willing to pass laws at great expense to fix it.
 
deonb said:
Below 450 PPM and below 2 degrees increase. This has been a consistent message for many years.
Click to expand...
That's funny, we've hit those numbers many times throughout history, and yet still have had massive hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, glacial calving, earthquakes, droughts, blizzards, volcanic eruptions, plagues and all that other nasty stuff that the zealots attribute to that evil trace gas CO2, and the mythical "climate change" they think it causes. :lol:
 
Remove catalytic converters from cars. That would probably cut co2 emissions by half. I'd like to see a study of the correlation of the introduction of the catalytic converter, the three way catalytic converter and co2 increases. Ban the catalytic converter!
 
PaulS said:
Remove catalytic converters from cars. That would probably cut co2 emissions by half. I'd like to see a study of the correlation of the introduction of the catalytic converter, the three way catalytic converter and co2 increases. Ban the catalytic converter!
Click to expand...
Cars run that rich?
 
azblackbird said:
That's funny, we've hit those numbers many times throughout history, and yet still have had massive hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, glacial calving, earthquakes, droughts, blizzards, volcanic eruptions, plagues and all that other nasty stuff that the zealots attribute to that evil trace gas CO2, and the mythical "climate change" they think it causes. :lol:
Click to expand...
Care to be specific about when?
 
The very first scientific conference I was involved with at IBM was about climate change.
Back in 1973, all the top scientists gathered at the TJ Watson Research Center for a week to present papers. Etc, etc.
At the end of the week they issued a strongly worded message to the leaders of the world that if something wasn't done, immediately, a majority of the world's population would starve to death withing the next 10 year do to the glaciation caused by the rapidly approaching new ice age.
Climate science has very little "science" to back it up. Just a lot of statistics, and opinion.
 
Like many polarizing issues, I see this discussion as an interesting study in how we think.

I'm simple. I look for fundamentals I can grasp, test and ultimately feel good about if they pass muster.

What I find interesting is that some of the most common sense oriented normal every day people with very strong work ethos and a stiff spine have goes at climate change. It just does not make sense.

I do not crap where I sleep. Likely the people I describe above do not crap where they sleep. Just because the "bed" is your planet does not change the fundamentals of that concept.

From a financial perspective, I'm an ole operations guy. I like to know where something is likely going to see if it is where I want to go. Holding on to fossil fuel technology and poo pooing renewable guarantees you end up at the back of the line. Given I've spent most of my adult life trying not to be at the back of the line, it would not seem to be a place I really want to go. My ideal of America is bright hard working people creating new innovative technology and products to solve problems. We benefit and remain relevant by adding value, our customers are better off via that added value and we all live on a cleaner planet.

As I said, I'm simple. I could care less about right and left, conservative or liberal or any other labels people like to use to divide us into voting blocks. Not interested in the game; just interested in fixing problems.
 
PaulS said:
Actually the cars could run much leaner without the catalytic converter.
Click to expand...
How so?

By your remark below, cars only burn 1/2 the gasoline in the cylinders, and the other half gets burned in the catalytic converter.

PaulS said:
Remove catalytic converters from cars. That would probably cut co2 emissions by half. I'd like to see a study of the correlation of the introduction of the catalytic converter, the three way catalytic converter and co2 increases. Ban the catalytic converter!
Click to expand...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
How so?

By your remark below, cars only burn 1/2 the gasoline in the cylinders, and the other half gets burned in the catalytic converter.
Click to expand...

I think what Paul was getting it was that a car should just exhaust HC, CO and NOx instead of converting it to CO2, N2 and H2O first.

Which would be technically correct I suppose - it would indeed lower CO2 emissions.
 
Last edited:
deonb said:
The problem with this type discussion online is that it's useless. People aren't even on different sides of the same argument. It's different arguments being shot over each other in the air.

You have people that:

a) Don't think that the earth is warming at all
b) Think that it is warming, and don't think it's man made
c) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, and don't think it's a problem
d) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and think that we should do something about it
e) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and don't give a crap
f) People who don't understand the difference between weather and climate

I'm in the (e) category. I live in a cold state, and high enough about sea level that even if all the ice in the world melts it doesn't affect me. As long as there is ice left for my Brandy, I'm good. I used to care, but since the people who are most affected by this tend to be the people who are most against doing anything about it, so be it.
Click to expand...

g) Think that it is warming, think it is a combination of the natural cyclic changes of the planet of the past bazillion years (or 5,000 if you're in that nut camp) and man made, unsure about to what extent it's man made versus natural, thinks we should do something to reduce the man made portion if the man made portion is over a certain percentage of the cause, unsure of what that percentage would be but thinks it has been crossed, realizes that the cost of doing something might be too much for those who won't be affected by the end result to give a damn, resigned to not really stressing out over the end result as I won't be around and have no offspring, but still supports efforts to do something.

Yeah... I know.
 
deonb said:
The problem with this type discussion online is that it's useless. People aren't even on different sides of the same argument. It's different arguments being shot over each other in the air.

You have people that:

a) Don't think that the earth is warming at all
b) Think that it is warming, and don't think it's man made
c) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, and don't think it's a problem
d) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and think that we should do something about it
e) Think that it is warming, think it's man made, think it's a problem, and don't give a crap
f) People who don't understand the difference between weather and climate

I'm in the (e) category. I live in a cold state, and high enough about sea level that even if all the ice in the world melts it doesn't affect me. As long as there is ice left for my Brandy, I'm good. I used to care, but since the people who are most affected by this tend to be the people who are most against doing anything about it, so be it.
Click to expand...

One more:
f) People who believe that God made the world and He made it for the people. Good stewardship is a primary responsibility. Good stewardship starts with the understanding that humans aren't a plague to the earth and any belief system that elevates the interest of the planet above those for whom it was created is errant and misguided. And, it's bound to bring suffering instead of blessing.
 
SkyDog58 said:
or 5,000 if you're in that nut camp)
Click to expand...

6,000-10,000, but what's a few thousand years between friends? And yes, we still exist and contrary to popular belief, we're not flat-earthers and we don't all handle snakes. :)

Hey........where's everybody going?........ I know, I know, leave it to the religious nut to kill a good discussion!
 
SkyDog58 said:
g)
Click to expand...

G is a great debatable argument with someone who accepts the same premise.

But these threads are more like in trying to debate whether eastbound or westbound circumnavigation of the globe is better but instead having flat earthers constantly interrupting the discussion with "there is no globe" comments.

This is not unique to POA - it''s the same on other forums (what IS unique about POA is that people manage to do that with EVERY topic...)
 
g) is also pretty close to my position, fwiw. I think doing something about it, even though we aren't completely certain of how urgent it is, is prudent and we should try to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels to the extent that it doesn't create a hardship for large numbers of people of the same order as the hardship we're trying to stave off. I think there's also a compelling secondary reason to do it, which is that we don't know how much is left and we don't want to be left without usable alternative energy sources when we start to run out.
 
deonb said:
Below 450 PPM and below 2 degrees increase. This has been a consistent message for many years.
Click to expand...
That didn't answer the question. At least it wasn't a straight answer. "Below 2 degrees increase" is not a valid answer to the question "what is the ideal temperature."
 
I am a skeptic, not a denier. If I was a true believer in man made global warming and that it's effects were overall harmful to the planet, I could not in good conscience fly an airplane for fun.
 
Cooter said:
One more:
f) People who believe that God made the world and He made it for the people. Good stewardship is a primary responsibility. Good stewardship starts with the understanding that humans aren't a plague to the earth and any belief system that elevates the interest of the planet above those for whom it was created is errant and misguided. And, it's bound to bring suffering instead of blessing.
Click to expand...

This gets right to the root of the whole thing.

"...and worshiped the god they made (creation) instead of the God who made them (Creator)..."
 
Salty said:
That didn't answer the question. At least it wasn't a straight answer. "Below 2 degrees increase" is not a valid answer to the question "what is the ideal temperature."
Click to expand...
It's a loaded question. There isn't an ideal temperature. The warmer it gets, the more noticeable the effects will be (doh!). Exactly what those effects will be, and where, is something on which models disagree, so basically we don't know yet. What we can say with confidence is that sea levels will rise and that heat waves will be more common in parts of the world. Some areas may well see colder winters.

Also: we don't actually know what CO2 level will keep the increase below whatever arbitrary amount you want to set, and that's with everything else (e.g. solar output) kept constant.
 
azure said:
To recap: the world was NOT on track for a new ice age (or glacial phase, to be more accurate) in the '60s, and the notion that it was was only speculation by a tiny minority. Even then, most scientists believed that greenhouse warming would dominate over aerosol cooling.
Click to expand...

Shepherd said:
Back in 1973, all the top scientists gathered at the TJ Watson Research Center for a week to present papers. Etc, etc.
At the end of the week they issued a strongly worded message to the leaders of the world that if something wasn't done, immediately, a majority of the world's population would starve to death withing the next 10 year do to the glaciation caused by the rapidly approaching new ice age.
Click to expand...

Just like Soviet Russia -- the future is certainty; it's the past that keeps changing.
 
Pilawt said:
Just like Soviet Russia -- the future is certainty; it's the past that keeps changing.
Click to expand...
Might want to check out this article, from circa 2008. The past doesn't "keep" changing, only some people keep resurrecting an old myth.
 
Everskyward said:
Doh. All the fossil fuel burning and producing industries would be happy and richer if the results showed that they had no effect on the climate. You're the one who can't see that some on both sides are guilty of the same thing.
Click to expand...

MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen,

"Alarm rather than genuine curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientist today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientist, advocates, and policymakers."

The environmental groups get significant portions of their funding from the "evil" corporations. This false equivalency gets old. "Oh yeah, you do it to!" Is not really an argument. If big oil is pushing for Climate Change Denial, they are getting massively ripped off.
 
Cooter said:
This false equivalency gets old. "Oh yeah, you do it to!" Is not really an argument. If big oil is pushing for Climate Change Denial, they are getting massively ripped off.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't justify the practice on either side. But it doesn't negate the fact that it exists on both sides. Pressure to change regulations exists on both sides, but you are blind enough to think that it works only one way.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that money may be the driving factor for many businesses and individuals, but for some people it's not. That seems to be very hard for people, who themselves are money driven, to comprehend.
 
Dav8or said:
It sure does. God has been a convenient excuse for all manor of atrocities committed throughout the ages.
Click to expand...

Look out! Here comes a zinger from Left Field!:yikes:

It funny how this always comes up. But, engaging it will certainly result in the thread being locked. So, I'll pass unless you want to discuss it via open PM. But, most political discussion eventually make their way back to root beliefs about God, purpose, meaning, etc. Maybe we should just skip political topics and just jump right to religion?:popcorn::stirpot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top