caliboy93 wrote:

What are the long-term scenarios associated with unchecked climate change?

- Risk to our cities which a majority are built on rivers and coasts, sea level rise and increased flooding.
- Increased unpredictability of weather patterns effecting agriculture and the land and ocean's ecosystems
- Massive migrations and instability all over the planet because areas that were fertile will not be and ones that aren't will be.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Didn’t know “science” is a verb, my I learned something today.

For those bad mouthing those who are less dramatic as being funded by industry; remember everyone of those “scientific experts” are funded by grants from governments and by politicians who have an agenda every bit as powerful as industries. The scientists need the grants the pols need the studies to continue and to expand their grip on power.

GF

Just an expression my biotech fiancee uses.

I didn't say anything about less dramatic - after all there is out and out denial of everything, from flat earth nonsense to vaccinations to climate change. That's obviously a massive issue with critical thinking and education. But as for grants - that is not the end-all be-all of science. Science is a continuum of trial-and-error, failure, discovery, revision, etc. While some alarmist reports may serve the agenda you speak of, that is not the broadstroke by which science operates. There were reports on atmospheric changes from CO2 emissions in the 1890s, and in other fields, it's easy to demonstrate no such political agendas are necessary - revelations about atomic structure and neutron behavior were made in several corners of the world well before there was any military potential to exploit such knowledge.

A friend of mine is now a research fellow at Univ. of Arizona Tucson and found his PhD topic completely by accident - not because it was suggested by his university or any politician's agenda. He was studying the ecology of reefs in the South Pacific and found an important relationship between Polynesian fishing methods and health of fish stocks. Believe me those were not the results French Polynesia authorities were hoping for.

The Dunning-Kruger effect has a lot to do with this and those that outright deny evidence and are so sure and confident that they can deny the facts. Where as scientists are never 100% sure and that makes for a very wishy washy level of communication from them. Thankfully some science personalities like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson do assert themselves.

trpmb6 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I never said climate change can't be real

What do you say then? Do you believe in science or not? Do you believe the lobbyist with the same tactic they used with cigarettes in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's?

I firmly believe the evidence that humans are a primary driver in the change of Earth's climate to be inconclusive. There are simply too many variables to know for certain.

Edit to add: I believe the study of climate change to often be a cart before the horse type of analogy. Scientists with a hypothesis seeking a means to confirm their hypothesis without properly controlling for all the remaining variables.

What variables are you looking at that make it inconclusive. Also climate scientists would love to find other explanations but there are none.

- The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere which can be very accurately measured from ice cores from both poles a show a constant concentration up until about 1850 when they discovered the hockey stick graph that shows the increase to what we see today. What else could be causing this besides mad-made activity.
- These cores also show where and major effects to climate have happened such as large volcanic eruptions that have caused climate disruptions. 1257 frozen London and European Famine, 1813-1814 year without a summer, mt Pinatubo 1991-1992 etc.
- The earth should be in a slight cooling phase due to changes in its distance from the sun and its axial tilt and this is not happening. What natural evidence is there to show that this spike in carbon in the atmosphere is natural.

Francoflier wrote:

Probably not, indeed. But it will very likely result in a higher frequency of the stronger storms, leading to increased impact when they make landfall.

The rise of sea levels will make the associated higher storm surges much more damaging and coastal cities much more vulnerable to severe or catastrophic flooding.

Some coastal cities are experiencing flooding at high tide now. Venice comes to mind and Miami beach has installed sump pumps not to deal with storm surges but flooding from high tide.

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-f ... ons-2018-4

caliboy93 wrote:

What are the long-term scenarios associated with unchecked climate change?

More government, more taxes and more left wing propaganda.

And since the "climate" has been changing for millions of years how do you plan on checking it?

Francoflier wrote:

The first serious consequences of climate change can already be seen and felt: the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather such as hurricanes and typhoons, floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps and winter storms, etc.

Those are already costing the affected nations billions. As their effects worsen, the consequences to mankind will worsen. The price of food will likely be affected and, added to the exponential population rise, will start hurting poorer nations and groups in the not too distant future.

Then the rise of water levels will exert an increasing pressure on coastal cities and communities, where a majority of the population lives.

It is predicted that parts of Southeast Asia will become so hot in the next few decades that they will be literally uninhabitable (as in: unsurvivable).

So all in all, I'd say massive migration flows and their associated tensions, increased trade tensions, increased infrastructure and housing costs. Oh, and wars.
The bill will be paid by everyone of us, whether we like it or not, whether we believe in it or not, and whether we think we are sheltered from it or not.
In fact, we have already started to pay but, just like the proverbial frog in the slow heating kettle, many haven't seemed to realize it yet...

...The power of human and corporate greed.

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure.

Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure. Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

That is an absolute lie falsehood.

"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."

https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

trpmb6 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I never said climate change can't be real

What do you say then? Do you believe in science or not? Do you believe the lobbyist with the same tactic they used with cigarettes in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's?

I firmly believe the evidence that humans are a primary driver in the change of Earth's climate to be inconclusive. There are simply too many variables to know for certain.

Edit to add: I believe the study of climate change to often be a cart before the horse type of analogy. Scientists with a hypothesis seeking a means to confirm their hypothesis without properly controlling for all the remaining variables.

This is a staggering statement, and responses like this one have lead me to no longer ask people's opinions on man-made climate change or global warming. It's like asking someone whether they believe in gravity - whether someone believes in it or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that there is overwhelming scientific consensus that it exists; and it's not an exaggeration to say that expert consensus around the existence of gravity and its effects are comparable to those around man-made global warming.

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons.

Source please. Because I'm quite sure you're wrong.

alfa164 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure. Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

That is an absolute lie falsehood.

"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."

https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

And the US went through an unprecedented hurricane drought that ended in 2017 where we saw no major hurricanes make land fall in over 12 years.

The problem with using small sample sizes is that it doesn't explain a global climate that changes over millennia. Just because a warming trend correlated somewhat well with the CO2 hockey stick graph does not necessarily imply causation. We're currently in a pattern of no warming based on satellite data. Does that mean increasing levels of CO2 causes warming to stall? No. It just means we don't truly understand the vast complexity of the Earth's heating and cooling cycles. The impact of the solar cycles. The ability or inability of the oceans to retain and transfer heat.

When you zoom into any data set you can make it show what ever it is you want it to show. You need to look at it from a high level, far away context in the noise of all the data. It's possible the warming trends we experienced in the 90s are just in the noise of what the globe goes through.

I'm not denying that humans have an impact on the global climate. What I am unsure about is *how much* humans impact the climate.

trpmb6 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure. Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

That is an absolute lie falsehood.
"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."
https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

And the US went through an unprecedented hurricane drought that ended in 2017 where we saw no major hurricanes make land fall in over 12 years.

Huh? Perhaps you missed Dennis, Katrina (how could anybody overlook that one?), Rita, and Wilma in 2005; Homberto in 2007; Dolly, Gustav, and Ike (causing billions of dollars of damage in Texas) in 2008; Irene in 2011; Isaac and (how could anyone overlook the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeast in 40 years?) Sandy in 2012; Arthur in 2014; and Hermine and Matthew, which devastated Florida in 2016. I know people all over the east coast, south, and Gulf coast would have enjoyed that 12-year hurricane "drought" you mentioned.

And keep in mind, climate scientists do not say global warming is causing more hurricanes; they point out that it induces more powerful hurricanes, and that has been borne out by the facts - even during the time period when you saw no hurricanes.

Maybe I should suggest again: If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

alfa164 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure. Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

That is an absolute lie falsehood.

"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."

https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

This quote is stupid. As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes, but not an on overall increase in hurricanes. At best you can say that there is no consensus that the frequency of hurricanes will increase.

(See, e.g.: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... hange.html )

From NOAA:
While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease. The unadjusted hurricane count record (blue curve) shows a significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the early 1900s. However, when adjusted with an estimate of storms that stayed at sea and were likely “missed” in the pre-satellite era, there is no longer any significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1800s (red curve). While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these recent increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase. (emphasis mine)

Source: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/

Lesson: Don't provide a falsehood when challenging a falsehood.

trpmb6 wrote:

If you think I'm a science denier, you should probably never fly on an aircraft I've worked on. Which is just about most of the ones you'll fly on commercially. Unless you fly in Russia of course.

Look, I am not a climate scientist, as I am not a doctor. If I think I am sick I go to the doctor because he has much more information about my health then I have. I can't design planes, so Boeing goes to someone whom can, you might be among them. And thus if I want to know about the science of climate change, I listen to a scientist whom actually studied it. Yet, you apparently feel that climate science is your field of expertise, even though you hint on being an aviation engineer. So yes, I do not get that. So in the field of climate science, you deny the science and rather believe what your own mind - with limited knowledge of the field - is telling you.

That is fine, believe what you believe, if you want to believe in Santa Clause, fine, do that. But expect not to be taken too seriously in this field. So in short, I will not debate facts.

Magog wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Magog wrote:

Trump ran on increasing the use of coal. And he won. I can’t really blame him if he disagrees with your characterization of the electorate.

...he won a minority of the electorate, hardly on the be-all-end-all of coal. Your point?

My point is that Trump's victory shows that your argument that "voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards" is a crappy argument.

The only crappy argument is you ascribing Trump's loss of the popular vote to a referendum on fuel efficiency standards

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Oh, I know, all of the above, answer E. CAFE is ridiculous as its primary effect has been to increase annual miles driven—longer commutes, more exurban development, and cheaper transportation by the reduction in cost. Voters love their pickups and SUVs, car makers love the profits from big vehicles, Republicans love the votes from suburban voters driving those high profit cars and oil industry loves selling product. If voters truly were concerned, high mileage sedans and EVs would be popular and profitable. Hint: they’re not selling. I see guys in huge $60,000 pickups buying bird seed. My wife is all about recycling and science until you suggest taking her Ford Explorer away. At 17mpg, it ain’t happening, either.

Don’t buy the BS money buys votes; if it did we’d be complaining about the second President Clinton.

GF

That's a lot of nonsense. Voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards and car companies are begging the Trump administration to not lower the standards, so that leaves republicans and the fossil fuel industry as the sole parties interested in reducing fuel standards. If a President can go against voters and industry's wishes on fuel efficiency, why would it be such a stretch to do the same, but in the same interests of those parties, ie more efficient standards?

Well, car companies were bailed out by the Obama crony capitalists and don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. The bureaucrats and Dems won’t be happily disposed if the companies oppose the changes.

Of course, voters support fuel efficiency, it makes their pickups and SUVs cheaper to operate. What they don’t understand is the price they paying for it. New cars are horribly complicated, turbocharged mini engines designed to satisfy the EPA test on mileage and give the consumer 300 hp. Well, lots of experience tells me this is a legal version of Dieselgate. Run a 2 liter four cylinder engine sans boost on the test cycle-great mileage. Drive it using using the power and fuel economy is worse than a NA V6. You can ECO or BOOST, just not both. No real spare tire is a pain in tukas, just to save some weight.

Again, not only wrong, but irrelevant. Republicans have no problem lowering efficiency standards--do you expect them to "practice what they preach" or does it only matter when the government tries to increase efficiency?

alfa164 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

That is an absolute lie falsehood.
"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."
https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

And the US went through an unprecedented hurricane drought that ended in 2017 where we saw no major hurricanes make land fall in over 12 years.

Huh? Perhaps you missed Dennis, Katrina (how could anybody overlook that one?), Rita, and Wilma in 2005; Homberto in 2007; Dolly, Gustav, and Ike (causing billions of dollars of damage in Texas) in 2008; Irene in 2011; Isaac and (how could anyone overlook the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeast in 40 years?) Sandy in 2012; Arthur in 2014; and Hermine and Matthew, which devastated Florida in 2016. I know people all over the east coast, south, and Gulf coast would have enjoyed that 12-year hurricane "drought" you mentioned.

And keep in mind, climate scientists do not say global warming is causing more hurricanes; they point out that it induces more powerful hurricanes, and that has been borne out by the facts - even during the time period when you saw no hurricanes.

Maybe I should suggest again: If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

There are numerous sources that discuss the drought of major hurricanes in that time period. I'm just saying that there are fluctuations and it's hard to understand what causes those fluctuations. You just posted about the increased frequency of north atlantic hurricanes being evidence of global warming, while at the same time noting my evidence of less hurricanes hitting the US is clearly not evidence of global warming not existing. This is why I don't like these discussions because it cherry picks the data. You can formulate an argument anyway you want by picking and choosing data sets that are favorable to your opinion.

For instance, I could go and pull average temperatures for the US for May 2019 and compare to average temperatures for the US for May 2011 and make a very compelling argument that temperatures are decreasing! (Go ahead and look, the averages in 2011 were much higher for the month of may than they were for last month) But in truth, the reality is that in 2019 we are experiencing an el nino pattern which led to elevated cloud cover, more rain and a jet stream that resulted in cooler weather for much of the continental US.

Magog wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

windy95 wrote:

For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons. More humans and more property being affected is not because of anthropogenic global warming but because of more humans and more infrastructure. Predictions from the last 30 years have inaccurate or just blatant propaganda.

That is an absolute lie falsehood.
"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."
https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

This quote is stupid. As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes, but not an on overall increase in hurricanes. At best you can say that there is no consensus that the frequency of hurricanes will increase.
(See, e.g.: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... hange.html )
From NOAA:
While global mean temperature and tropical Atlantic SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends (green curves), the U.S. landfalling hurricane record (orange curve) shows no significant increase or decrease. The unadjusted hurricane count record (blue curve) shows a significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the early 1900s. However, when adjusted with an estimate of storms that stayed at sea and were likely “missed” in the pre-satellite era, there is no longer any significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1800s (red curve). While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these recent increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase. (emphasis mine)Source: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/
Lesson: Don't provide a falsehood when challenging a falsehood.

Not let us all turn to page 108 in the Magog hymnal...

First we sing "For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons..."...

When proven wrong, we should join the chorus with "As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes".... even though that is not what I said earlier...

Now shout out "This quote is stupid"... when the quote comes from the National Climate Assessment, "A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences."...

...and end this swinging sing-song with a quote that does not even mention the increased intensity of hurricanes - although that is the very thing being discussed here.

.
Now everybody can close their hymnals... it is time for a sermon from yet another troll, I am sure...

MaverickM11 wrote:

Magog wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

...he won a minority of the electorate, hardly on the be-all-end-all of coal. Your point?

My point is that Trump's victory shows that your argument that "voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards" is a crappy argument.

The only crappy argument is you ascribing Trump's loss of the popular vote to a referendum on fuel efficiency standards

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

That's a lot of nonsense. Voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards and car companies are begging the Trump administration to not lower the standards, so that leaves republicans and the fossil fuel industry as the sole parties interested in reducing fuel standards. If a President can go against voters and industry's wishes on fuel efficiency, why would it be such a stretch to do the same, but in the same interests of those parties, ie more efficient standards?

Well, car companies were bailed out by the Obama crony capitalists and don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. The bureaucrats and Dems won’t be happily disposed if the companies oppose the changes.

Of course, voters support fuel efficiency, it makes their pickups and SUVs cheaper to operate. What they don’t understand is the price they paying for it. New cars are horribly complicated, turbocharged mini engines designed to satisfy the EPA test on mileage and give the consumer 300 hp. Well, lots of experience tells me this is a legal version of Dieselgate. Run a 2 liter four cylinder engine sans boost on the test cycle-great mileage. Drive it using using the power and fuel economy is worse than a NA V6. You can ECO or BOOST, just not both. No real spare tire is a pain in tukas, just to save some weight.

Again, not only wrong, but irrelevant. Republicans have no problem lowering efficiency standards--do you expect them to "practice what they preach" or does it only matter when the government tries to increase efficiency?

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive. Safety, I’ll agree, but what kind of gas mileage I get-none of heir business. So, yes, I agree with eliminating CAFE, and it probably has a lot of support for the reasons I gave.

For the record, I don’t care about climate change for the simple reason, no one else does, not to the extent they will act like it’s a fact. I’ll stipulate it’s a fact, just no one really is going to sacrifice to address it.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive. Safety, I’ll agree, but what kind of gas mileage I get-none of heir business. So, yes, I agree with eliminating CAFE, and it probably has a lot of support for the reasons I gave.

I think we can divide the people here into two groups: those who care about the future of the planet and our future generations, and those who - sadly - don't.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Magog wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

...he won a minority of the electorate, hardly on the be-all-end-all of coal. Your point?

My point is that Trump's victory shows that your argument that "voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards" is a crappy argument.

The only crappy argument is you ascribing Trump's loss of the popular vote to a referendum on fuel efficiency standards

This may blow your mind, but a reasonable inference is that voters who want more coal don’t give a crap about fuel efficiency standards. I’m not sure how pointing out that a Trump lost the popular vote by a very tiny margin equates to “strong voter support” for anti-Trump policies. That’s some fancy math you’ve got going on there.

alfa164 wrote:

Not let us all turn to page 108 in the Magog hymnal...

First we sing "For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons..."...

When proven wrong, we should join the chorus with "As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes".... even though that is not what I said earlier...

Wow. Now you are just shamelessly lying. Look at what I said in post number 53. To make it easier for you, I will quote it verbatim here:
“For the record, global warming will not result in an increased frequency of hurricanes.”

Notice how I said nothing whatsoever about the intensity of hurricanes in my original post? And notice how you conveniently inserted that into a fictitious quote that you attributed to me?

So apparently your hymnal is to make up quotes. Congratulations.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive. Safety, I’ll agree, but what kind of gas mileage I get-none of heir business.

Here's a wild concept: maybe, just maybe, the gas mileage that you get with your automobile has a safety impact on not just you, but everyone who inhabits this planet. Are you okay with the federal or state government getting involved in whether you can start a massive bonfire in your backyard? Not that different.

alfa164 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive. Safety, I’ll agree, but what kind of gas mileage I get-none of heir business. So, yes, I agree with eliminating CAFE, and it probably has a lot of support for the reasons I gave.

I think we can divide the people here into two groups: those who care about the future of the planet and our future generations, and those who - sadly - don't.

It would be more accurate to say that there are three groups. The first group is comprised of those who do not care whatsoever. The second group is comprised of people who care and are making meaningful changes in their lifestyle. The third group is comprised of people who say they care but are not making meaningful changes in their lifestyle. Unfortunately, there are lots more virtue signalers than people who are making meaningful changes in how they live their lives.

This is why, like so many others here, I am not terribly optimistic. On the other hand, I am very optimistic that technology will assist in our dealing with the symptoms of the problem.

Magog wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Not let us all turn to page 108 in the Magog hymnal...
First we sing "For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons..."...
When proven wrong, we should join the chorus with "As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes".... even though that is not what I said earlier...

Wow. Now you are just shamelessly lying. Look at what I said in post number 53. To make it easier for you, I will quote it verbatim here:
“For the record, global warming will not result in an increased frequency of hurricanes.”
Notice how I said nothing whatsoever about the intensity of hurricanes in my original post? And notice how you conveniently inserted that into a fictitious quote that you attributed to me?
So apparently your hymnal is to make up quotes. Congratulations.

Are you incapable of reading English? You can clearly see the first quote was attributed to "windy75" - then you included it as a part of your dubious attempt to argue - just for the sake of arguing - as is your modus operandi. You buy the argument - you own it.

You may not go back to your blowing hot air pontificating...

winginit wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive. Safety, I’ll agree, but what kind of gas mileage I get-none of heir business.

Here's a wild concept: maybe, just maybe, the gas mileage that you get with your automobile has a safety impact on not just you, but everyone who inhabits this planet. Are you okay with the federal or state government getting involved in whether you can start a massive bonfire in your backyard? Not that different.

You’re stretching the meaning of safety in the context of my post and the meaning the CAFE law which was written to address fuel economy, not climate change which want an issue when it was passed. Any evidence that CAFE has made any meaningful reduction in GHG since it was passed?

My town does issue burning permits, it’s is a safety issue in dry forested areas.

alfa164 wrote:

Magog wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Not let us all turn to page 108 in the Magog hymnal...
First we sing "For the record there has been no increased frequency or intensity of Hurricanes and Typhoons..."...
When proven wrong, we should join the chorus with "As I have said earlier, the consensus is that global warming will result in more severe hurricanes".... even though that is not what I said earlier...

Wow. Now you are just shamelessly lying. Look at what I said in post number 53. To make it easier for you, I will quote it verbatim here:
“For the record, global warming will not result in an increased frequency of hurricanes.”
Notice how I said nothing whatsoever about the intensity of hurricanes in my original post? And notice how you conveniently inserted that into a fictitious quote that you attributed to me?
So apparently your hymnal is to make up quotes. Congratulations.

Are you incapable of reading English? You can clearly see the first quote was attributed to "windy75" - then you included it as a part of your dubious attempt to argue - just for the sake of arguing - as is your modus operandi. You buy the argument - you own it.

You may not go back to your blowing hot air pontificating...

So you attacked the person who actually got it right? Interesting strategy.

Magog wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Magog wrote:

My point is that Trump's victory shows that your argument that "voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards" is a crappy argument.

The only crappy argument is you ascribing Trump's loss of the popular vote to a referendum on fuel efficiency standards

This may blow your mind, but a reasonable inference is that voters who want more coal don’t give a crap about fuel efficiency standards. I’m not sure how pointing out that a Trump lost the popular vote by a very tiny margin equates to “strong voter support” for anti-Trump policies. That’s some fancy math you’ve got going on there.

You can infer he lost the popular vote because coal is so popular? Did you use all your fingers and toes to come up with that?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Magog wrote:

My point is that Trump's victory shows that your argument that "voters strongly support fuel efficiency standards" is a crappy argument.

The only crappy argument is you ascribing Trump's loss of the popular vote to a referendum on fuel efficiency standards

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Well, car companies were bailed out by the Obama crony capitalists and don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. The bureaucrats and Dems won’t be happily disposed if the companies oppose the changes.

Of course, voters support fuel efficiency, it makes their pickups and SUVs cheaper to operate. What they don’t understand is the price they paying for it. New cars are horribly complicated, turbocharged mini engines designed to satisfy the EPA test on mileage and give the consumer 300 hp. Well, lots of experience tells me this is a legal version of Dieselgate. Run a 2 liter four cylinder engine sans boost on the test cycle-great mileage. Drive it using using the power and fuel economy is worse than a NA V6. You can ECO or BOOST, just not both. No real spare tire is a pain in tukas, just to save some weight.

Again, not only wrong, but irrelevant. Republicans have no problem lowering efficiency standards--do you expect them to "practice what they preach" or does it only matter when the government tries to increase efficiency?

I want to see the Feds OUT of deciding what fuel efficiency I’m willing to pay or what type of car I drive.

So as I suspected it has nothing to do with whether or not the politicians are making meaningful changes themselves

I find it interesting that you are arguing that the voting public strongly favors initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions when we just had Trump elected. That’s all I’m saying. It’s really not a controversial observation.

Magog wrote:

I find it interesting that you are arguing that the voting public strongly favors initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions when we just had Trump elected. That’s all I’m saying. It’s really not a controversial observation.

Trump lost on the vote count. That’s all I’m saying. It’s really not a controversial observation.

Magog wrote:

I find it interesting that you are arguing that the voting public strongly favors initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions when we just had Trump elected. That’s all I’m saying. It’s really not a controversial observation.

Do you not understand how polls and popular votes work? Maybe we need to bring this back to basics, before we even tackle the lunacy of ascribing an entire election to coal alone.

alfa164 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

That is an absolute lie falsehood.
"The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm."
https://nca2014.globalch ange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes
If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

And the US went through an unprecedented hurricane drought that ended in 2017 where we saw no major hurricanes make land fall in over 12 years.

Huh? Perhaps you missed Dennis, Katrina (how could anybody overlook that one?), Rita, and Wilma in 2005; Homberto in 2007; Dolly, Gustav, and Ike (causing billions of dollars of damage in Texas) in 2008; Irene in 2011; Isaac and (how could anyone overlook the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeast in 40 years?) Sandy in 2012; Arthur in 2014; and Hermine and Matthew, which devastated Florida in 2016. I know people all over the east coast, south, and Gulf coast would have enjoyed that 12-year hurricane "drought" you mentioned.

And keep in mind, climate scientists do not say global warming is causing more hurricanes; they point out that it induces more powerful hurricanes, and that has been borne out by the facts - even during the time period when you saw no hurricanes.

Maybe I should suggest again: If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

I live in Florida so I know all about Hurricanes. The fact is that frequency and strength are not unprecedented. In recorded history there have been storms as big and as strong as now over a 100 years ago. Like usual the left wants to use a specific sample size that fits their agenda on global warming. All of the Hurricanes above have caused more damage in dollars affected more people because there are way more people and infrastructure on the coasts then a 100 years ago.

The two biggest hoaxes/scams ever perpetuated on the American public are Russian collusion and global warming.

windy95 wrote:

The two biggest hoaxes/scams ever perpetuated on the American public are Russian collusion and global warming.

windy95 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

And the US went through an unprecedented hurricane drought that ended in 2017 where we saw no major hurricanes make land fall in over 12 years.

Huh? Perhaps you missed Dennis, Katrina (how could anybody overlook that one?), Rita, and Wilma in 2005; Homberto in 2007; Dolly, Gustav, and Ike (causing billions of dollars of damage in Texas) in 2008; Irene in 2011; Isaac and (how could anyone overlook the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeast in 40 years?) Sandy in 2012; Arthur in 2014; and Hermine and Matthew, which devastated Florida in 2016. I know people all over the east coast, south, and Gulf coast would have enjoyed that 12-year hurricane "drought" you mentioned.

And keep in mind, climate scientists do not say global warming is causing more hurricanes; they point out that it induces more powerful hurricanes, and that has been borne out by the facts - even during the time period when you saw no hurricanes.

Maybe I should suggest again: If you want to argue against what can easily be proven, at least try some argument that can't be found false with a simple 20-second search.

I live in Florida so I know all about Hurricanes. The fact is that frequency and strength are not unprecedented. In recorded history there have been storms as big and as strong as now over a 100 years ago. Like usual the left wants to use a specific sample size that fits their agenda on global warming. All of the Hurricanes above have caused more damage in dollars affected more people because there are way more people and infrastructure on the coasts then a 100 years ago.

The two biggest hoaxes/scams ever perpetuated on the American public are Russian collusion and global warming.

What a pathetic crock.
You know all about Hurricanes? you a meteorologist or a fry cook?

Let's look at the list of the most intense Hurricanes since 1851 in the atlantic basin with pressures below 920 hPA.

15 of the 21 measured were from 1980 onward , and 9 of the 21 have been from 2003 to the present.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
Allen 1980 Category 5 hurricane 305 km/h (190 mph) 899 hPa (26.55 inHg)
"Labor Day" 1935 Category 5 hurricane 295 km/h (185 mph) 892 hPa (26.34 inHg)
Gilbert 1988 Category 5 hurricane 295 km/h (185 mph) 888 hPa (26.22 inHg)
Wilma 2005 Category 5 hurricane 295 km/h (185 mph) 882 hPa (26.05 inHg)
Mitch 1998 Category 5 hurricane 285 km/h (180 mph) 905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
Rita 2005 Category 5 hurricane 285 km/h (180 mph) 895 hPa (26.43 inHg)
Irma 2017 Category 5 hurricane 285 km/h (180 mph) 914 hPa (26.99 inHg)
"Cuba" 1932 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 915 hPa (27.02 inHg)
Janet 1955 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 914 hPa (26.99 inHg)
Camille 1969 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 900 hPa (26.58 inHg)
Katrina 2005 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 902 hPa (26.64 inHg)
Dean 2007 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 905 hPa (26.72 inHg)
Maria 2017 Category 5 hurricane 280 km/h (175 mph) 908 hPa (26.81 inHg)
"Cuba" 1924 Category 5 hurricane 270 km/h (165 mph) 910 hPa (26.87 inHg)
Isabel 2003 Category 5 hurricane 270 km/h (165 mph) 915 hPa (27.02 inHg)
Ivan 2004 Category 5 hurricane 270 km/h (165 mph) 910 hPa (26.87 inHg)
Hattie 1961 Category 5 hurricane 260 km/h (160 mph) 920 hPa (27.17 inHg)
Hugo 1989 Category 5 hurricane 260 km/h (160 mph) 918 hPa (27.11 inHg)
Michael 2018 Category 5 hurricane 260 km/h (160 mph) 919 hPa (27.14 inHg)
Opal 1995 Category 4 hurricane 240 km/h (150 mph) 916 hPa (27.05 inHg)
Gloria 1985 Category 4 hurricane 230 km/h (145 mph) 919 hPa (27.14 inHg

windy95 wrote:

I live in Florida so I know all about Hurricanes. .

Is that the same as knowing all about Russia because you can see it from your back door?

windy95 wrote:

The two biggest hoaxes/scams ever perpetuated on the American public are Russian collusion and global warming.

It is obvious the State of Florida needs to put a little more effort into its education system....

Too much nonsense on the topic especially here in Europe where everyone got themselves worked up.

Personally, I am not worried, and don't see even a fraction of the problem that media likes to make of it.

casinterest wrote:

15 of the 21 measured were from 1980 onward , and 9 of the 21 have been from 2003 to the present.

Which incidentally correlates well with the satellite era.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

15 of the 21 measured were from 1980 onward , and 9 of the 21 have been from 2003 to the present.

Which incidentally correlates well with the satellite era.

It does, but there is also this one that shows the average sea temperature over time
.



Or the average sea level over time with ground data and satellite data.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The current rise in sea levels is 3.3 MM a year. That is 1+ inches every 8 years.

More heat content in the oceans will correlate to more storms, and with higher sea levels, this results will be disastrous as we move forward.

And with any reconstructed model comes inputs from a human with their interpretation.

trpmb6 wrote:

And with any reconstructed model comes inputs from a human with their interpretation.

And yet you just brought up Satellites? Seeing is believing. Especially with Storms and Arctic Sea Ice loss.

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

And with any reconstructed model comes inputs from a human with their interpretation.

And yet you just brought up Satellites? Seeing is believing. Especially with Storms and Arctic Sea Ice loss.

Again, small sample size. Could all be within the noise.

And also again, I'm not saying humans don't have an impact on the environment and climate. Clearly we do. Just as cows impact the climate and trees and all living creatures. I'm saying I'm not convinced that we understand all the variables well enough to know to what level of influence we have. I mean look at the graph you shared. We could simply be in a cycle of bouncing back and forth between -0.5C and +0.5C. You just don't have enough of a data set to know what that major cycle is.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

And with any reconstructed model comes inputs from a human with their interpretation.

And yet you just brought up Satellites? Seeing is believing. Especially with Storms and Arctic Sea Ice loss.

Again, small sample size. Could all be within the noise.

And also again, I'm not saying humans don't have an impact on the environment and climate. Clearly we do. Just as cows impact the climate and trees and all living creatures. I'm saying I'm not convinced that we understand all the variables well enough to know to what level of influence we have. I mean look at the graph you shared. We could simply be in a cycle of bouncing back and forth between -0.5C and +0.5C. You just don't have enough of a data set to know what that major cycle is.

So all the data shows a trend, and yet you want more . The issue with that is that if we don't curb CO2 now, the effects will become logrithmic.

How about the fact that we have more CO2 in the air than the last million years right now. CO2 is much better at creating a greenhouse effect.




https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... n-dioxide/

We also have drastic increases in temperature of the atmosphere.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/

And yet throughout those millennia the temperatures varied far more than they have in the last century. Literally proving my point that the problem is far more complex and the variables hardly understood.

trpmb6 wrote:

And yet throughout those millennia the temperatures varied far more than they have in the last century. Literally proving my point that the problem is far more complex and the variables hardly understood.

So all the models showing that within a century we will have temp increases of 2-6 degrees celsius mean nothing when all the historical data shows that it took 5000 years coming out of glacial periods?

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

And yet throughout those millennia the temperatures varied far more than they have in the last century. Literally proving my point that the problem is far more complex and the variables hardly understood.

So all the models showing that within a century we will have temp increases of 2-6 degrees celsius mean nothing when all the historical data shows that it took 5000 years coming out of glacial periods?

I am suggesting that the models do not account for all the variables and their weighted impact and thus the models are flawed.

trpmb6 wrote:

And yet throughout those millennia the temperatures varied far more than they have in the last century. Literally proving my point that the problem is far more complex and the variables hardly understood.

The climate has changed in the past is one of those things that's true and also irrelevant. Over the course of human civilization, the climate has been remarkably stable - modern humans (homo sapiens) have only been around for about 50,000 years, and human civilization (e.g. agriculture) has only existed for about 12,000 years.

At the same time, we know basic the chemistry of combustion; we know that fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution. And, ever since, CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere. This massive change has been happening in the last 200 years - a blink of the eye in the timespan of that chart above (that goes back 800,000 years).

But the problem isn't that complex. Humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels, and that is changing the atmosphere. You wouldn't light some wood on fire, ask 'why is it so smoky in here?' and accept an explanation of 'well, the problem is far more complex than you'd understand...'

Arguing climate change with a denier is about the same as arguing evolution with a denier. Don't. Although I did have an interesting discussion on my last vacation with one such. We really didn't argue.

blockski wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

And yet throughout those millennia the temperatures varied far more than they have in the last century. Literally proving my point that the problem is far more complex and the variables hardly understood.

The climate has changed in the past is one of those things that's true and also irrelevant. Over the course of human civilization, the climate has been remarkably stable - modern humans (homo sapiens) have only been around for about 50,000 years, and human civilization (e.g. agriculture) has only existed for about 12,000 years.

At the same time, we know basic the chemistry of combustion; we know that fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution. And, ever since, CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere. This massive change has been happening in the last 200 years - a blink of the eye in the timespan of that chart above (that goes back 800,000 years).

But the problem isn't that complex. Humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels, and that is changing the atmosphere. You wouldn't light some wood on fire, ask 'why is it so smoky in here?' and accept an explanation of 'well, the problem is far more complex than you'd understand...'

It’s not denying climate change, it always has evolved, warmer and cooler, with or without human intervention. The argument doesn’t matter, as no one seriously contemplates the sacrifices required by the more extreme elements. Who have, without fail, made all sorts of dire predictions that haven’t come true. Many in Gore camp had us boiling in an overheated atmosphere by now, no polar ice or bears, agriculture a disaster, the list goes on. A little less extremism and more practical answers and recognition that humans will adapt and survive would help science go gown better. Right now, we’re all choking on the dire BS.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not denying climate change, it always has evolved, warmer and cooler, with or without human intervention.

Some how you missed blockskis well stated point: "You wouldn't light some wood on fire, ask 'why is it so smoky in here?"

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who have, without fail, made all sorts of dire predictions that haven’t come true. Many in Gore camp had us boiling in an overheated atmosphere by now, no polar ice or bears, agriculture a disaster, the list goes on. A little less extremism and more practical answers and recognition that humans will adapt and survive would help science go gown better. Right now, we’re all choking on the dire BS.

As as I can see, Gore was right and you're wrong. You're bitching about Gore is a parallel to the way the Trumpsters still whine about Hillary's E-mails.

Spar wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not denying climate change, it always has evolved, warmer and cooler, with or without human intervention.

Some how you missed blockskis well stated point: "You wouldn't light some wood on fire, ask 'why is it so smoky in here?"

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Who have, without fail, made all sorts of dire predictions that haven’t come true. Many in Gore camp had us boiling in an overheated atmosphere by now, no polar ice or bears, agriculture a disaster, the list goes on. A little less extremism and more practical answers and recognition that humans will adapt and survive would help science go gown better. Right now, we’re all choking on the dire BS.

As as I can see, Gore was right and you're wrong. You're bitching about Gore is a parallel to the way the Trumpsters still whine about Hillary's E-mails.

In 2007, 2008, 2009, Al ?Gore predicted North Pole ice would disappear, based the current trends, by 2013. How’d that work out?

In 1988, Prof. Hansen at Columbia U. predicted NYC’s West Side Highway would be flooded in 20 years. How’d that work out?

Paul Ehrlich bet John Simon we were running out of five major minerals. He lost as ten years later prices for all of them fell.

Ehrlich also predicted widespread famine with millions dying in Western Europe by the 80s. Didn’t happen, did it?

In 1990, Michael Oppenheimer working for the Environmental Defense Fund predicted greenhouse gases would desolate large areas of North America and Eurasia by 1995 In 1996, the North Platte River would dry up and the plains would be a dust bowl again. Millions of Americans would be illegal immigrants in Mexico.

For 100 years the end of oil production has been predicted as just around the corner. It hasn’t happened, either.

I’ve heard all kinds of predictions, but predicting the future is hard, ask any meteorologist. I’m not be stampeded into some crazy action until I see the value in it. And you know what, that’s how the average person sees it. They buy their gas lawnmower, drive SUVs, run an outboard boat to their fishing hole, fly on vacation and don’t worry about what they can’t fix. Others get panic stricken, scream and run around like their hair is on fire.

GF

Here's the thing, all these people were trying to wake the world up to the issue of climate change; you're working to put the world to sleep.

When the issue of climate change comes up all you naysayers pipe up "but Gore" "but Gore" "but Gore", just like the Trumpsters try to change the subject when Trumps lies and deceit is raised; "but Hillary's E-mails" "but Hillary's E-mails" "but Hillary's E-mails".

Gore was right, climate change is a serious issue and the fact that you want to poo poo it puts you in the wrong.

Gore was wrong, he predicted New York City would be in trouble by the end of the 21st century. It turned out Sandy 2012 - some 80 years earlier. And no, he did not predict Arctic ice would disappear by 2013, but that ice is in serious trouble.

All those issues were “serious” issues that turned out to be poop. Like I said, the track ain’t good, I’ll wait for concrete evidence.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Gore was wrong, he predicted New York City would be in trouble by the end of the 21st century. It turned out Sandy 2012 - some 80 years earlier. And no, he did not predict Arctic ice would disappear by 2013, but that ice is in serious trouble.

Sandy was a CAT 2 hurricane, as had been predicted for years. The areas struck were less protected than New Orleans. Big whoop!

As to ice-Free in 2013,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/

GF

Actually Sandy was not a hurricane when it hit the mid-Atlantic, but it was really big, and had a lot of storm surge potential. Otherwise I normally quit reading climate warming and evolution denial nuts.

I’m neither, a skeptic, yes and a realist, nothing gonna change so it doesn’t matter

Now, if China or India swore off all fossil fuels or the West started fast tracking nuclear power, I might pay attention.