RegGuheert said:
No one in your circles, perhaps. I suggest you clap your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and...SING!
IT IS 3 (now 2) MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
- Thread starter edatoakrun
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
No one in your circles, perhaps. I suggest you clap your hands over your ears, close your eyes, and...SING!
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Nope. When I hear the claims, I look at the measured data. And I have posted it for all here to see for many years. See immediately above how I provided detailed data above how India and China are massively polluting our world and the Paris agreement was just a crooked means for US to fund that nonsense. As everyone can clearly see, you are not describing me. Your ad hominem attack is just that: a logical fallacy with no merit in this discussion.LeftieBiker said:
Fortunately, virtually every single one of the scare stories which has been bandied about has proven OPPOSITE of what the actual measurements show. It's amazing what people will believe. If you believe otherwise, you will need more than fallacies to support your assertions.
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
Amusing.
The ocean is rising.
Ice doesn't care. Gets above 0C, it melts.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Yes. The ocean is rising very slowly, just like it has for thousands of years. Before that, the sea level rose at a MUCH higher rate. And sea level is NOT rising at nearly half of the tidal gauges around the world. At many of them, it is dropping. Is there something about the ocean rising slowly that alarms you?WetEV said:
So what? You make this nonsense statement repeatedly. But there is nothing scary about that.WetEV said:
BTW, WetEV, just like California, you just experienced the wettest winter ever out there. Nothing like the "permanent drought" which had just been declared months before by, guess who?: The New York Times.
GRA
Well-known member
Reg. please, stop hyperventilating.RegGuheert said:
I quite agree that promising to reduce emissions is nothing like actually reducing them. That's one reason I find it hard to get too excited about the Paris agreement, or our pulling out of it. AFAIC, voluntary agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. What would matter would be mandatory agreements with an enforcement mechanism and the willingness to use it, and Paris lacks all of that. We've already seen just how many countries failed to meet their goals under Kyoto, most embarrassingly including the host, Japan: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissionsRegGuheert said:
No, the main value of Paris, IMO, was that for the first time we were able to get China and India to agree to set any goals for themselves, and to slow the growth of fossil-fueled plants. Both countries are running as fast as they can just trying to stay in place, as electricity demand has risen rapidly (slowing in China though).
Your info re China is out of date:RegGuheert said:
Which was followed by:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/coal-power-plants-green-energy-china-india
Again, your info re India is out of date:RegGuheert said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/india-coal-green-energy-climate.html
* Highly questionable absent cheap storage. See below re Chinese curtailment of PV/Wind.
Now, would I prefer that China and India give up coal-fired plants entirely? Sure. Is that realistic? Not now, barring a complete shift to nukes (which they're also building in large numbers) for baseload. At least the coal plants they are building, especially in the case of China, are much more efficient and less polluting than the ones they are replacing, as both countries' politicians are increasingly being driven by public pressure over air pollution:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx
Which assumes that such money transfers would ever have taken place, and that's as likely as NATO countries meeting their agreed financial commitments, or charity donor countries meeting theirs. Again, it's all voluntary, and not worth the paper it's written on. What does matter is that politicians have to think about it, and then convince their own public why it's not a good idea to take steps that reduce air pollution, regardless of whether or not they believe in AGCC.RegGuheert said:
GRA
Well-known member
Actually, the article said unending drought (to that point), not that it was permanent. California has always had cycles of drought; the concern is that they're getting longer, and that more of the precip in wet years is likely to fall as rain instead of snow (which thankfully didn't happen too much this year, or we might have seen the Oroville dam collapse, instead of just the spillway fail). The state depends on snowpack for about 30% of its annual water supply, and lacks storage if more falls as rain (or warm rain causes rapid melting, as happened a couple of times this past season, leading to major flooding). I know that you don't believe in AGCC, but for those of us who are worried about it it's a major concern. Besides the steps that need to be taken to reduce air pollution are much the same as those for reducing GHGs, so why take the chance of guessing wrong about AGCC if we want to do those things anyway?RegGuheert said:
Nubo
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
Yeah, well it was a joke. The "minutes to midnight" trope is doomed to fizzle. I mean you can only get so close. Zeno's paradox doesn't play well with the visceral impact. "It's .0000000001 seconds to midnight"... it just doesn't play. So I went to 12:01 to get it over with. The anticipation was killing me.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
You need to reread what I wrote along with the link. India NEVER agreed to reduce their emissions in the short term. What they agreed to reduce was "emissions intensity". Again, they have pledged to INCREASE emissions by a factor of three by 2030. Sorry, but your belief that they agreed to reduce them is incorrect.GRA said:
You'll have to provide some evidence that the proposals from China and India were actually to slow emissions growth in the short term. In the case of India, they were demanding funds so that they could HASTEN their growth.GRA said:
My information is newer than everything in the above paragraph. I quoted ACTUAL coal power plant construction data from a report dated October 2016. Do you have something that says that China is NOT constructing 205 new coal-fired electricity plants or that India is not building 65? No, you don't. So, tell me, how many coal-fired plants are they currently building?GRA said:
No, it's not. Check it again: The article is dated May 15, 2017. India may be telling others one thing, but it is clear that they CURRENTLY plan to massively grow coal generation.GRA said:
India Times said:
India Times said:
Do you know of ANY politician who is trying to convince the public that it is not a good idea to take steps that reduce air pollution?GRA said:
Here is what President Trump promised in his speech last Wednesday:
Most coal-fired plants in the U.S. are rather clean in terms of emissions. My gripe with the use of coal and other fossil fuels in our country has always been the environmental damage done to access those resources. In China and India, OTOH, it is clear that air pollution is also a massive problem.President Donald J. Trump said:
Frankly, it is ridiculous for people like Angela Merkel to criticize the US for our policies when she has spent massive amounts of money and done massive environmental damage over the past 10 years without succeeding in reducing emissions in her own country. But when China criticizes us in this area, it is complete and utter nonsense.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Ha! Got it! Thanks for explaining it to me in small words!Nubo said:
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
Looks to me rather like the rate is increasing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6269-ancient-romes-fish-pens-confirm-sea-level-fears/
Oh, and not for thousands of years.
RegGuheert said:
Yes, While the climate was warming about 4C over roughly 10,000 years, the sea level rose. At the peak, as much as two feet per decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A
4C... before 2100?
Ice doesn't care. Gets above 0C, it melts.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Actually, that plot does not indicate that the slope is increasing. What it shows is that the slope changed in 1925. The slope was higher between 1925 and 1955, but sea level rise has been a bit slower since that time. Since 1925, global sea level has risen a total of about 200 mm, or about eight inches, according to your graph. In other words, the sea has risen at a slope of just over one inch per decade for the last nine decades. No one should be alarmed by such a slow rise in sea level.WetEV said:
Looks to me rather like the rate is increasing.
And, BTW, all those alarming pictures of Manhattan underwater are just unscientific fakery. In fact, sea level at lower Manhattan has been steadily dropping at a rate of about 100 mm/decade for the past eight years:
What most people don't know is that increasing sea level does NOT imply that coastal land is lost to the sea. In fact, the opposite is true. When the amount of coastal land gained and lost to the sea is measured over the entire planet, we find that the coastal land area is GROWING, not shrinking:
Simply put: Coastal land area is NOT dominated by sea level rise: "Coastal erosion and accretion, tectonic uplift and subsidence…are far more influential."Donchyts et al. said:
Nonsense. Global temperatures have only risen about 0.5C in the last 40 years. Even if we extrapolated linear from today, we will only expect 1C rise in the next 80 years. But that is not how the climate works.WetEV said:
But that's not how climate works. Temperature trends are cyclical. We know that the global temperature closely follows the temperature of the oceans. Specifically, we see that global temperatures follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO):
And since the global temperature closely follows the AMO, we should all expect that it will follow it back down for the next fifty or sixty years. Here is a historical plot of the AMO which should give you an idea where temperatures will be going in the near future:
There's that say-nothing quote again. The simple fact is that the Arctic melt this year has been the slowest in 12 years due to the fact that the temperatures have been much lower than normal:WetEV said:
Likewise, the Antarctic Peninsula is in a trend of rapidly cooling at a rate of 0.47C/decade since 1999.
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
I notice that you avoided the near net zero slope since Roman times. The ocean has not been rising slowly for thousands of years. The ocean level has stable for most of the past two thousand years. Do you agree, or do you have sources to dispute this?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
RegGuheert
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you are on about. Look again carefully at the graph you posted. Sea level has gone up NO MORE THAN ABOUT THREE METERS IN THE LAST SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS. That's about 4.3mm/decade. That matches what I said:WetEV said:
RegGuheert said:
WetEV
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
IPCC said:
Sea level fall from Roman Times to pre-industrial, not from 7,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago.
The last 2000 years up until sometime between 1905 and 1945, sea levels didn't change much.
A small point, but indicative.
A larger point would be your statement that the Arctic Ocean will never be mostly ice free in summer.
George Orwell said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
I never said that. Lying to try to paint others in a negative light shows the quality of your character.WetEV said:
I did say this:
That was in response to an exchange which looked like this:RegGuheert said:
WetEV said:
As should be clear to all, YOU are the one who was trying to put words into my mouth by making a statement about an extremely unlikely event as if it was a foregone conclusion. All the rest was you trying to deflect and walk back from such a ridiculous statement.RegGuheert said:
So, put up or shut up: Can you name a single global, climate-related effect which is moving in a negative direction? Clearly you can't, or you would have already done it.
- The recent, gradual global sea level rise which we have experienced cannot be characterized as a negative since global coastal land area is INCREASING, not decreasing.
- The recent, gradual global increases in temperature cannot be characterized as negative since population, food production and green plant life are all steadily increasing and global hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods are all flat or trending down. Also, global temperatures are quite likely to continue to follow the AMO as they have in the past, which means they will be headed down in the very near future.
- Reduction in the area or volume of sea ice cannot be characterizes as negative. If anything, less sea ice is a positive since ice tends to hamper navigation on the seas. Polar bears populations are way up in the last decade or so. The historical record indicates the Arctic Sea Ice is roughly the same as it was back in the 20th century.
I've provided the scientific data to support all of these statements. I'll trot them out again for all to see if you really want me to.
arnis
Well-known member
And CO2 level in ppm is doing what?
We can actually measure what happens at 400, at 450, at 500, at 550, in a lab. No need to make predictions.
Let's assume nothing else beside CO2 level changes. What will happen in 50 years and what will happen in 100 years?
Let's keep world's population, Sun's activity, sea level, ice coverage etc.. all fixed.
We can actually measure what happens at 400, at 450, at 500, at 550, in a lab. No need to make predictions.
Let's assume nothing else beside CO2 level changes. What will happen in 50 years and what will happen in 100 years?
Let's keep world's population, Sun's activity, sea level, ice coverage etc.. all fixed.
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Sorta OT Q, do those little CO2 cartridges used for inflating bike tires contribute to climate change?
WetEV
Well-known member
https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2017/06/14/camouflage-or-scary-monsters-deceiving-others-about-risk/
edatoakrun
Well-known member
What's the worst that could happen?
Unfortunately, it looks like we will probably find out...
Fortunately, it doesn't look likely to top 110 degrees up here in North California... until Summer really hits, in a few more weeks.
Unfortunately, it looks like we will probably find out...
https://www.wired.com/story/is-it-so-bad-if-the-world-gets-a-little-hotter-uh-yeah/
Fortunately, it doesn't look likely to top 110 degrees up here in North California... until Summer really hits, in a few more weeks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/14/record-threatening-crazy-heat-forecast-for-western-u-s-early-next-week/?utm_term=.813a3cf8c1f8
GRA
Well-known member
The weird part as far as Norcal is that we had snow in the Lake Tahoe area just last Sunday, as well as high winds, some light rain, thunder and lightning, hail, a funnel cloud and below average temps in the Bay Area and Sacramento. While not unheard of, snow in June is extremely rare - even May is somewhat uncommon. Temps have been climbing steadily since then, and were in the normal range the past couple of days, but are forecast to break records in many places for the next week or so, with pretty much the entire Central Valley in triple digits a little early in the season.edatoakrun said: