patrick.net

HeadSet says

DASKAA says

HeadSet says

AGW may or may not be real, but the same steps to abate pollution and resource depletion would also abate AGW.

R u sure about that? The push for diesel passenger cars in Europe under the AGW abatement agenda has worsened local pollution, for example.

When I was in France in the 90's, diesel passenger cars were common place. I even drove a diesel Chrysler minivan. This was done for economics, I was not aware that diesel polluted less than gasoline. Maybe the higher mileage of diesel means less pollutants per mile driven.. Even so, my point is that fewer people means less driving (diesel or otherwise) and less pollution/carbon footprint. Enough fewer people would go a long way to making a nationwide fleet of electric vehicles supportable by wind/solar/hydro/nuke generating capacity.

They pollute more in every measure - NOX, particles, ozone, etc. - except CO2. The latter was the reason to promote them as "less polluting". This is my main beef with the AGW hysteria: downplaying real, immediately harmful pollution and overhyping the emissions of harmless gas.

Have no problem with "less people is good" idea, but this means "wasist" immigration laws will have to be written and enforced. Don't really see the current AGW champions - the left - embracing such policy.

Don't really see the current AGW champions - the left - embracing such policy.

True, if you really believed in AGW, you would not be for unfettered immigration.

CBOEtrader says

How would one go about measuring the temperature of November?

Serious question

That is a great question. How do the climate change believers calculate worldwide average temperature?

The alarmists claim that 2016 was the hottest year ever, exceeding 2015 by 4/100 of one degree. Since then the temp has gone down. NOAA reports it, I repeat it.

Onvacation says

The alarmists claim that 2016 was the hottest year ever, exceeding 2015 by 4/100 of one degree. Since then the temp has gone down. NOAA reports it, I repeat it.

LeonDurham says

LeonDurham says

Onvacation says

The alarmists claim that 2016 was the hottest year ever, exceeding 2015 by 4/100 of one degree. Since then the temp has gone down. NOAA reports it, I repeat it.

LeonDurham says

And the trend is down...

Onvacation says

And the trend is down...

Nope. It sure isn't.

Washington Post blames Trump for Hurricane Florence. I guess they think he can do this:

LeonDurham says

Nope. It sure isn't.

When do you suppose Florida is going under water? What's the wetbulb death count this year? Is there any ice left in the arctic?

Onvacation says

When do you suppose Florida is going under water? What's the wetbulb death count this year? Is there any ice left in the arctic?

Do you understand trending now?

god forbid, you even try to understand this, or put it in perspective. Here's a gragh from the source of that data.

The high you see on the orange (land only) graph is the feb 2016 data point. It's not updated, but you can easily figure out that the down spike since then takes us to about the 2012 lows. .





I wish you were right. with your fantasies. I really do.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

marcus says

god forbid

So what's your guess for an ice free arctic?

Onvacation says

So what's your guess for an ice free arctic?

Ice free ? In the middle of winter ? Let's hope never. These down spikes will be harder to come by if arctic ice was completely gone in the winter. We're totally fucked if that happens.

But gone in the summer ? Sadly I definitely think probably less than another decade before we see that. I hope I'm wrong.

When is your guess for when the land and ocean (combined) graph can be seen to be in an actual clear down trend ?

marcus says

But gone in the summer ? Sadly I definitely think probably less than another decade

I'll put you down for 2028. Iwog guessed 2022 and Gore predicted 2013.

Smart alarmists are putting the doom out into the distant future.

marcus says

god forbid, you even try to understand this, or put it in perspective. Here's a gragh from the source of that data.

Ok help us understand it. How does one measure "global surface mean air temperature"? Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.

So Marcus, LeonDurham,

Since AGW is such a real threat, what do propose should be done? Wind/Solar are already on the way.

Tolls on all roads? (Encourage local sourcing, consolidated trips, more efficient logistics). Euro style gasoline taxes may help here as well, but eventually a tax would have to apply to the increasing number of electric/hydrogen vehicles.

Daylight laws? Have truly non-essential business close at night to save on electricity cost and take advantage of natural sunlight and solar power. The region I lived at in England in the 90s was like that, if you did not get gas/groceries/merchandise by 6PM you waited until the next day. Not as bad as it sounds, you just had to plan.

Return to deposit bottles? Have all milk and sodas in recyclable glass. Much less energy needed to clean a bottle than make a new one. In fact, easy open aluminum cans take more energy to make than the old style cans without a pop top. Using the old "church keys" would save energy.

And the biggy - severely curtain immigration and let the natural lower fertility rates bring the population down to a sustainable level. Only a sustainable level of people will allow solar/wind/geothermal/thorium/hydro energy production take the place of fossil fuels. And even with a lower population, that may require new efficiencies in energy use.

HeadSet says

Since AGW is such a real threat, what do propose should be done? Wind/Solar are already on the way.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but denying reality makes finding them much more difficult. If we can't even agree on the facts, how can we agree on the best solutions?

Onvacation says

Gore predicted 2013

If we're going to be honest, he didn't predict that. He said others had said arctic ice would be gone possibly as early as 2013 or 2014 (both years - because he referred to this POSSIBILITY on multiple occasions - sometimes citing 2014).

So he was quoting one of the scientists with the most agressive models. Not a lie. It's called a quote. Unless he made it up in a sort ot Trumpian way. Then it was a lie.

But his motive was to get us moving away from fossil fuels. That's a good thing. As Elon Mush recently pointed out. Even when all the new cars being sold are electric, we'll have another 20 years of gas burning cars on the road. If you hate politicians that lie or bend the truth to move their agenda forward, then you must REALLY despise Trump.

CBOEtrader says

Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.

Red herring and a troll. Great job.

As for the question of resolution of individual readings versus average, at some point I'll do a simulation to prove my point. But I'm done with that argument for now.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but denying reality makes finding them much more difficult. If we can't even agree on the facts, how can we agree on the best solutions?

That is a straw man. There are enough AGW believers to start taking action without the need to convince all remaining "deniers." Plus, even "deniers" would like to stop pollution and resource depletion. The issue is that AGW has become a Democrat canon, with the mere "belief" being sufficient to show one's moral/intellectual superiority. Don't even consider solutions, just argue with deniers and vote Democrat.

If we want a 1st world lifestyle, we will have to limit population. That is the uncomfortable truth to the AGW crowd that also supports unfettered immigration.

you must REALLY despise Trump.

Trump is the only one who is actually doing something about curtailing illegal immigration and bringing manufacturing back to the US where US environmental laws apply. The AGW people must love this aspect of Trump.

HeadSet says

That is a straw man. There are enough AGW believers to start taking action without the need to convince all remaining "deniers." Plus, even "deniers" would like to stop pollution and resource depletion. The issue is that AGW has become a Democrat canon, with the mere "belief" being sufficient to show one's moral/intellectual superiority. Don't even consider solutions, just argue with deniers and vote Democrat.

If we want a 1st world lifestyle, we will have to limit population. That is the uncomfortable truth to the AGW crowd that also supports unfettered immigration.

Uh, it's nowhere close to a strawman. Our President is a GW denier ffs.

How can we have a real discussion about solutions when half the population denies it's a problem?

How can we have a real discussion about solutions when half the population denies it's a problem?

How about the half that does believe start talking about solutions?

It’s colder, it’s hotter, it’s colder, it’s hotter.

Sounds like normal weather to me.

HeadSet says

How about the half that does believe start talking about solutions?

You're not aware of the proposals? There have been lots of potential solutions bandied about...

FortWayne says

It’s colder, it’s hotter, it’s colder, it’s hotter.

Sounds like normal weather to me.

Exhibit A.

You're not aware of the proposals? There have been lots of potential solutions bandied about...

Such as?

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

Then explain how they did it in the 1880's.

Red herring and a troll. Great job.

So without any way to do these measurements in an accurate way in the past its ok w you? How can you support concepts like "hottest in history" if our measurements werent accurate 25 years ago?

Unless you can rectify this problem you have no authority to lecture others on understanding data.

HeadSet says

Such as?

Google proposals to combat climate change and you'll find lots.

Here's an article for 2007:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18forum.html

Here's an article for 2007:

That is an article of Hillary electioneering talking points. 55 mpg by 2030? That is too far in the future to be serious, especially when spoke in 2007, as is "reducing oil imports by 2/3 by 2030" (even though Trump may have already exceeded that goal). Even so, replacing imported oil with domestic oil does not lower carbon emissions. "Cap and Trade" is a gift to Hillary buddy Goldman-Sacs who would make a killing trading carbon credits. The rest of the article, such as "ending nuclear weapons" is pap.

What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.

Thanks to the miracle of fracking natural gas (which all Democrats were against), America now leads the world in carbon reduction and oil and gas exports.

"Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#5e03202b3535

Meanwhile, China, India and Germany are relying more and more on coal and dirty Russian and OPEC oil.

America has already achieved more carbon reduction RESULTS than all the hypocrites that signed the Paris Agreements. And our economy is BOOMING and we no longer are hostage to OPEC and Russia. Win win win.....

HeadSet says

What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.

Who says something is wrong with them? Add them to the discussion.

Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.

LeonDurham says

Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.

Illegals are incentivized to have children once they make it across the US border. Once their kids are legal citizens, it makes it easier for the parents to stay in the US with our idiotic chain migration rules.

Whereas, if these same poor people were still stuck in shitholes like Venezuela or Honduras, they would probably have less children because they can't afford it.

"Venezuela crisis: sterilizations soar as couples count the cost of children"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/03/venezuela-sterilizations-soar-children-crisis-food-shortages-inflation

Although I don't see how limiting immigration would limit world population.

I am talking about limiting immigration to 1st world countries. A person living in the US uses 100x the resources as someone in the third world. Think of all the water used for dishwashers, clothes washers, showers,and irrigation. I would say an American flushes more water per day than a third world persons total daily use. A third world guy uses very little electricity, by we use lots of juice for luxuries like air conditioning and clothes dryers alone. And cooking with oven and stove takes lots more energy than using a wood fire. Add to that the individuals share of the energy it takes to truck goods to stores, keep supermarket coolers running, and keep on the business and city lights.

I lived in the Azores for about a year and a half. Azores was not really 3rd world, but more like US in the 1950s. No homes had A/C, and everyone used a clothesline instead of a dryer. Farm products, including milk, were often brought to the stores on donkeys or animal pulled carts The meat sections of the food store did not use refrigeration, and I do not remember anyone getting sick from eating it. Everything shut down at night. If a person emigrated from Azores to the US, his lifestyle would become a lot more resource intensive. The "carbon use" would be even more stark for a true third worlder moving to the US. Thus, 1st world countries limiting immigration from 3rd world counties would keep prevent an increase in resource depletion and carbon use.

By the way, I did not feel "deprived" by "lower living standards." The lack of materialism and greater sociability was quite refreshing. I also got used to eating octopus, barnacles, quail eggs, and overcooked meat with a fried egg on top.

socal2 says

Illegals are incentivized to have children once they make it across the US border. Once their kids are legal citizens, it makes it easier for the parents to stay in the US with our idiotic chain migration rules.

Whereas, if these same poor people were still stuck in shitholes like Venezuela or Honduras, they would probably have less children because they can't afford it.

Birth rates are actually much higher in 3rd world countries so the opposite of what you say is true.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

HeadSet says

I am talking about limiting immigration to 1st world countries. A person living in the US uses 100x the resources as someone in the third world.

True. But, that will change over time. Many formerly 3rd world countries are well on their way to becoming 1st world.

LeonDurham says

Birth rates are actually much higher in 3rd world countries so the opposite of what you say is true.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25

Not in Central and South America. They are plummeting.

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2015/1221/In-Latin-America-an-exception-to-falling-birthrates-draws-new-scrutiny
https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ho&v=25

socal2 says

Not in Central and South America. They are plummeting.

Exactly. From your article:

"The trend is generally viewed as a good thing – evidence of a wealthier and healthier society, where parents aren’t operating under the assumption that a child may die from malnutrition or disease. It reflects a higher number of girls staying in school and then working. And it signals changed attitudes toward women's central roles."

NOAA's numbers are out. August is the 5th warmest August in recorded history. Nasa concurs and says the solar minimum is providing some much needed cooling.
Expect snow this winter.