There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 OTOH, if I’m right, my seventy five year old self will be rubbing your nose in it with more vigor than I am today.

Yep.  You'll be saying "see, I TOLD you Tesla would be successful!  Sure, seas have risen but Obama's house is fine like I said!  And I NEVER SAID that all that warming would be good, or that there wouldn't be problems.  I was right!"

You just have to keep up with the latest climate news so that no matter what happens you can claim you were right all along.

[gowlerk 1,902]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Do you mow your lawn, paint your house or even unplug the shitter, when the time comes? Why bother? Why not whack down your shade trees to save the expense of watering them? Why even get up each morning? It's pointless given that life is so short and the day's are even shorter, right. Would it be because your continued existence is pleasurable to you and also benefits your wife and kids?

Biodiversity isn't an easy come easy go proposition. Just as an old tree may have value that exceeds one trip through the mill so might an old ecosystem like the Great Barrier Reef have value worth preserving.

Have you ever been to the Great Barrier Reef? Have you ever explored it over hundreds of dives? Do you even have the slightest clue about what you would so glibly toss to the dogs because in your world view when it's time it's time? I'm guessing not.

It's a funny thing. Some people get all emotional and care about stuff like coral reefs and polar bears and shit. Other people get choked up about the possibility of gasoline costing a little more. Strange order of priorities.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

23 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It's a funny thing. Some people get all emotional and care about stuff like coral reefs and polar bears and shit. Other people get choked up about the possibility of gasoline costing a little more. Strange order of priorities.

Not strange at all. 

Some people understand the importance of biodiversity and the idea that stuff affecting polar bears and coral reefs will affect humans too.

Others can't see past their own nose (and wallet).

[mbohu 77]

On 6/17/2019 at 12:13 PM, turtlespeed said:

True or false?

Saying that Coal production is down, is a lie.

Simple: You have to specify WHERE.
In the US as well as the European union energy production from coal is indeed falling as has been so for a while--in absolute numbers, not just as a percentage of the entire energy production.
Worldwide it is still rising, albeit slower. You can pick countries or regions in this chart to see this:

http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Historical-Electricity-Generation-Statistics#tspQvChart

 

Edited August 31, 2019 by mbohu

[brenthutch 383]

I have a coral reef in a 280 gallon + system in my basement and have been maintaining a coral reef tank for nearly three decades.  So I might just know a little about them

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I have a coral reef in a 280 gallon + system in my basement and have been maintaining a coral reef tank for nearly three decades.  So I might just know a little about them

That's ideal. Have you tried raising the water temperature 2 degrees, pouring in a bottle of white vinegar and tossing in a handful of granulated plastic yet? Do be careful because, as you know, when the corals are stressed by acidification, heat or pollution they eject the mutualistic algea that gives them pretty colors and oxygen. Of course, then the corals go dead without oxygen and look bleached. Now it's a real bummer for all the specialized critters and fish in your tank that also play a huge role in coral reef health. But who gives a shit because they're too little for us to eat anyway. We like to eat bigger fish that are born pan size and live lives unrelated to reef systems. 

 

 

[Coreece 189]

deleted

Edited September 1, 2019 by Coreece

[brenthutch 383]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That's ideal. Have you tried raising the water temperature 2 degrees, pouring in a bottle of white vinegar 

The temps routinely vary by two degrees (when the 1000+ watts of lightning come on in the late morning).  I have not tried white vinegar but I do Use CO2.

https://fragtasticreef.com/korallin-c1502-calcium-reactor-package-with-cylinder/

I have never had a problem, but then again my corals don’t read the New York Times, listen to NPR or watch MSNBC so they don’t know they should be dead.

Edited September 1, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The temps routinely vary by two degrees (when the 1000+ watts of lightning come on in the late morning)

So up your thermostat by 2 degrees.  Shouldn't matter, right?

[kallend 1,620]

May have another record shortly:

Dorian right now ranks as tied for the 2nd-strongest storm (as judged by its maximum sustained winds of 185mph gusting to 220) ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean, behind Hurricane Allen of 1980, and is tied with the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane for the title of the strongest Atlantic hurricane at landfall.

Dorian's peak sustained winds are the strongest so far north in the Atlantic Ocean east of Florida on record. Its pressure, down to 910 millibars (26.87 in. Hg), is significantly lower than Hurricane Andrew’s when it made landfall in south Florida in 1992 and data taken by Hurricane Hunter aircraft flying inside the storm show that Dorian may still be intensifying.

 

[brenthutch 383]

So it is no worse than 1935.  Thank you for the update.

Edited September 1, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

On 8/30/2019 at 8:30 PM, brenthutch said:

Yep and I guess we will go the way of the dodo bird in the next decade or so (if AOC, Al Gore, Prince Charles and Greta Thunburg are correct).  OTOH, if I’m right, my seventy five year old self will be rubbing your nose in it with more vigor than I am today.

By the way, I think it's great that middle aged folks like us know Greta Thunberg's name.  That means the next crop of voters definitely know her name.

Edited September 2, 2019 by DJL

[DJL 232]

18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So it is no worse than 1935.  Thank you for the update.

Record after record after record all within the same short time span.  But hey, that CO2 sure does make for a marginally better crop yeild!

Edit:  So do you notice that all of these records we've listed are happening right now but in order for you to find an equivalent you have to go back a century (We'll pretend you didn't go back 500 million years for your coral example).  Century storms need a host of factors in place for them to happen yet we have all of these century scale events happening within a very short timespan.  Your issue with predictions of "imminent catastrophe" hinge on your complaint that there's no empirical data and that they're wild guesses but when shown actual examples you sound like Baghdad Bob.

Edited September 2, 2019 by DJL

[DJL 232]

Another prediction that came true, instances of fires in the Boreal Forest because of rising global temperatures:

Scientific Report:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.02205

News Narrative:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190822-why-is-the-arctic-on-fire

[billvon 2,380]

20 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So it is no worse than 1935.  Thank you for the update.

2005 was worse in terms of windspeed.  1980 was worse in terms of pressure, the usual means of determining how "bad" a hurricane is.  You are using the "strongest winds at landfall" definition to find the 1935 record.

I am sure as time goes by you will be able to find narrower and narrower definitions to advance your agenda.  "Hey, sure, the 2024 hurricane season was really bad - but in 1942 there were more named hurricanes that reached more than 100 miles inland in at least four states!"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 8/30/2019 at 7:30 PM, brenthutch said:

Yep and I guess we will go the way of the dodo bird in the next decade or so (if AOC, Al Gore, Prince Charles and Greta Thunburg are correct).  OTOH, if I’m right, my seventy five year old self will be rubbing your nose in it with more vigor than I am today.

Can you link any reputable source that claims humans will be in real danger in the next decade?

Or are you just making shit up again?

There isn't any real overall threat coming in my lifetime (or yours).

So the idea that you will be 'rubbing people's noses' in it in a couple decades simply says you don't understand the reality of the situation..

We may do irreparable damage. We may reach a 'tipping point', a 'point of no return' where we won't be able to stop it.

But the real effects won't be dangerous to us for a while yet.

[wmw999 2,116]

I’m afraid i find engaging some people in some discussions to be pointless. Because they only see inputs by others as springboards for what they want to say or do, and not as data to be evaluated. 

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

39 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Can you link any reputable source that claims humans will be in real danger in the next decade?
 

Every Democrat running for office.  Oh, you said reputable......never mind.

[billvon 2,380]

27 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I’m afraid i find engaging some people in some discussions to be pointless. Because they only see inputs by others as springboards for what they want to say or do, and not as data to be evaluated. 

As a good case in point:

Quote

 

Yep and I guess we will go the way of the dodo bird in the next decade or so (if AOC, Al Gore, Prince Charles and Greta Thunburg are correct).  OTOH, if I’m right, my seventy five year old self will be rubbing your nose in it with more vigor than I am today.
 

Quote

 

Can you link any reputable source that claims humans will be in real danger in the next decade?

Quote

Every Democrat running for office.  Oh, you said reputable......never mind.

 

 

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Every Democrat running for office.  Oh, you said reputable......never mind.

Please name one that says humans will be in danger of extinction in the next decade.

While I agree that politicians are not really reputable sources for scientific information (Al Gore included), I can't think of any that are claiming what you think. 

[normiss 620]

44 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please name one that says humans will be in danger of extinction in the next decade.

While I agree that politicians are not really reputable sources for scientific information (Al Gore included), I can't think of any that are claiming what you think. 

But...they're DEMOCRATS!!!!!   /s

[brenthutch 383]

22 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Can you link any reputable source that claims humans will be in real danger in the next decade?

Or are you just making shit up again?

There isn't any real overall threat coming in my lifetime (or yours).
 

"We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own,” the leader of the world’s 1.3 billon Roman Catholics said

[DJL 232]

37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own,” the leader of the world’s 1.3 billon Roman Catholics said

Does that sentence continue with some claim that there will be a single cataclysmic event in the next ten years that will destroy nature and life itself?

Edit:  In the interest of actual discussion rather than one-liners:   You're making an argument that it's OK to ignore these warnings because you think people are over reacting and there's no need to make draconian laws regarding climate change.  That's an argument of extremes that simply doesn't exist.  There will be events in the next 10 years that will threaten specific people and areas just like there already have been events and those events will increase as global warming continues.  There IS a need for the world to act together so that everyone is on board and there WILL be more needed from the wealthier countries and from those countries that can make the most change, it will not be equitable.  The dollar signs matter less than the fact that we cannot continue on this path so where WILL be legislation that results in higher prices.  BUT that highlights the fact that all countries need to act together so that the cost of a product in China isn't half the price of that product in the US because they use coal instead of renewables.

Edited September 3, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

"We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own,” the leader of the world’s 1.3 billon Roman Catholics said

It does threaten nature and life itself, including our own.  Just as damaging the ozone layer did, and just as the coal pollution in Britain did.   During the Great Smog of London, for example, one smog event killed 4000 people and sickened 100,000.  There's no question that that smog event gravely threatened nature and life itself in London.  And there's no way anyone would make the leap from that to "humanity will be extinct within a decade."  (Unless, of course, they had a political agenda to push.)

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

"We have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own,” the leader of the world’s 1.3 billon Roman Catholics said

This link shows the storm surge in the Bahamas.  While I don't want to make a claim that the current elevated sea level or the Hurricane are examples of global warming as that would raise claims of conjecture I wanted to show an example of what happens more and more often in a world of unchecked global warming.  There won't be a tsunami that'll fell the world in one swoop but marginally higher tides causing marginally more risk and when a marginally worse storm comes through the deck will stack to do much more damage.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/hurricane-dorian-satellite-photos-show-bahamas-underwater.html

As a clarification, this is satellite imagery, not photos.