3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

According to marine geophysicist Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, sea levels rise by about 1/16” for every 150 cubic miles of ice that melts off one of the poles. If you're willing to believe it, that is.

Let’s be clear.  Are you saying that  melting at the South Pole has the same climate  impact as melting at the North Pole ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Let’s be clear.  Are you saying that  melting at the South Pole has the same climate  impact as melting at the North Pole ?

Um, no. Assuming you are spooling up to gotcha me you are referencing the North and South poles on this planet, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No I question the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of planetary climate, and that a more salubrious climate is a bad thing.

Let me place my nose even closer to the doo-doo, who cares? Unless you believe that a fart in the front seat of the car shouldn't be a concern for those in the rear all you are concerned with is location and time. It seems to me that you are focused on a much shorter time frame than are climate scientists. That's fine. I mean, what kind of knucklehead orders something that won't be delivered until after he is dead, right? Truly, some day's I am so pissed off and disconsolate at how things really are that I'm ready to toss my recycling onto the neighbors yard instead of putting it in the damn bin. But I haven't yet. And even if I do it won't be because I don't believe the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I am still waiting for the four horsemen of the climate apocalypse (floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires) to rear their ugly heads.  

I believe you're waiting for them to happen where you live, with big flashing signs on them saying "this is because of climate change." 

And even then you'll doubt because not as many people died as died in Galveston in 1900.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I am still waiting for the four horsemen of the climate apocalypse (floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires) to rear their ugly heads.  

=============

July 15, 2019

NYT

KATHMANDU, Nepal — The death toll mounted Monday from flooding and landslides caused by torrential weekend rains in India and Nepal, as rescuers carried out desperate searches for survivors and officials in nearby Bangladesh braced for the floodwaters to move downstream.

================

Paris Scorches in Historic Drought as Heatwave Fries Europe

July 23, 2019, 9:00 PM PDT 

Bloomberg

Paris is its driest in almost 150 years and temperatures across Europe are reaching extreme levels, scorching fields and shutting power plants.

As temperatures climb across Europe, peaking on Thursday in Paris and London, the effects of extreme weather are becoming clearer. Electricite de France SA cut its nuclear output because river water is too warm to cool plants, power prices have jumped and farmers are frustrated by another bad spell for crops.

==============

News 10

This was the busiest hurricane season on record

Updated: 4:43 PM EDT July 23, 2019

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Following a busy hurricane season, there comes a sigh of relief and sense of calmness – finally, it’s over.

Although the 2018 season was memorable for its tragedies for folks in the Florida Panhandle and Carolinas especially, another period rises above all else for the sheer number of storms: The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.

With 28 tropical and subtropical systems, it was the most active in recorded history. It was so active the season spilled into January 2006 with lingering Tropical Storm Zeta. Yes, the National Hurricane Center ran out of names and had to revert to the Greek alphabet.

Fifteen of those systems became hurricanes, and seven of those were major (Category 3 strength or greater). The names Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma never will be used again given their destructive power at the time.

At least 3,900 people were killed across the Atlantic basin, and almost $160 billion in damage was realized upon final estimations.

==============================

2018 California wildfires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2018 wildfire season was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire season ever recorded in California, with a total of 8,527 fires burning an area of 1,893,913 acres (766,439 ha), the largest area of burned acreage recorded in a fire season, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) and the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), as of December 21.[1][2][3] Through the end of August 2018, Cal Fire alone spent $432 million on operations.[17] As of May 2019, insurance claims related to this fire season had reached $12 billion, most related to the Camp Fire in Butte County.[18]\

================================

Eagerly awaiting the usual progression: 1) those were normal, 2) climate change didn't have anything to do with them, 3) they are all good things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I am still waiting for the four horsemen of the climate apocalypse (floods droughts hurricanes and wildfires) to rear their ugly heads.  

Well, initially you were just asking where he went off the rails.  I showed it to you very specifically.  He used the wrong graph and a very short list of absolutist or incorrectly applied statements to support his statements.

As for the statement about sea ice 6000-7000 years ago he's quoting a study about beach ridge formation in a portion of Greenland formed by waves which would require a long period of open water.  The researches state in that study:

"Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.

But nevermind the statements from the people he's quoting because he just wants to say,

"So we can say with 100% certainty that Arctic sea ice has no correlation with atmospheric CO2. We can also say with 100% certainty that climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to predicting Arctic sea ice and they have no integrity."

So which is it?  The very people he's saying have no integrity have given him the information he's using for his claim about CO2.

Next, "Every single day we see new stories about the arctic dying...."  No, he provided 10 stories for a period of 10 years, some repeated in different locations, some by the same people bringing us to about 7 or 8 actual stories.  2 of those were instances in which the scientist being quoted stated that in no way had his data concluded with such a claim, so now we're down to 5 to 6....in a decade.  In the meantime the scientific body at large has provided a very detailed record that shows the actual progression of sea ice loss that can be used to trace a possible rate of loss continuing over the next 50 years.  Several of those graphs are posted above.

Next.

I'm not sure what the Reykavik Iceland Temps and Atlantic multidecadal oscillations have to with or prove about atmospheric CO2.  I can tell you with certainty that the Atlantic gulfstream plows straight into Iceland and can say with 100% certainty that the temp in iceland is affected by temps in the Atlantic Ocean.

Next

"...satellite sea ice records began in 1979, but that's simply not true."  Again, he's not quoting anyone in particular and I'm not sure what the relevance of the statement because he simply says it and continues in a nonsequitor about the temperature in Iceland that has no bearing on whether or not satellite sea records were being kept.  Satellite tracking began in the 60s but couldn't penetrate clouds or record at night because of our tech at the time.  It improved until when we were able to gather enough information to put together what we could track as a trend worthy of publishing.  

Ok, I've again exhausted explaining his pile of nonsense.  To provide you with information to work from, the rate of sea ice loss as measured by minimum extents is 13.2% per decade or about 924,000 square kilometers.  At that rate the sea ice extend minimum will be zero in about 2055.  When it comes to an actual application of that mathematical trend it still doesn't mean that there's going to be a sea with zero ice in it, simply that the continuous expanse we know of now will be replaced with floating patches, slush, some ice bergs floating around all left over from the winter freeze.  Picture this being similar to a map showing the possible path of a hurricane.

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No I question the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of planetary climate, and that a more salubrious climate is a bad thing.

But you've be unable to provide any evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No I question the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of planetary climate

It's not.  It is merely the primary cause of _anthropogenic_ global warming.  

Quote

and that a more salubrious climate is a bad thing

You are using words you don't understand.  (Either that or you are doing the intentional-misunderstanding thing again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No I question the notion that CO2 is the primary driver of planetary climate, and that a more salubrious climate is a bad thing.

This is like talking to an antivax mom.  The words of her child's doctors fall on deaf ears but some guy on Youtube is definitive proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John F. Kennedy's challenge to the country to put man on the moon and bring them back safely by the end of the decade was "magical thinking" at the time.

All throughout the sixties as the space program progressed there was a lot of opposition to it.  We can't afford it.  It doesn't help the people on the planet now, etc, etc, etc.

Economic analysis of the space program and the results of the technology improvements and inventions shows that the money spent on the space program program was totally worth it.  Trillions of dollars of economic activity can be traced back to the progress made by the space program.  It is by far and away one of the best investments ever made.

The green new deal can be just as successful if the country gets behind it. 

Given that the UK and the USA have conceded ownership of a good portion of their media outlets to an Australian that hates both places, it will never happen.

The stupidification of the masses continues.  It is not an accident.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScottishJohn said:

UK solar power pioneer Solarcentury profit grows 860% in a year

Profits from subsidy-free solar farms have helped to connect millions in Africa to cheap lighting

Who would've thought that utilizing a power source in which you don't have to pay for the fuel would be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billvon said:

No one could have known.

Seriously, the resistance to this concept is astounding, as if we'd rather be tied into a market that fluctuates every time something happens in the most volatile region in the world for oil, or one that requires a tremendous front end in the form of mining and transportation for coal.  And God forbid I mention the ACTUAL TRACK RECORD of health and environmental issues associated with both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DJL said:

Seriously, the resistance to this concept is astounding, as if we'd rather be tied into a market that fluctuates every time something happens in the most volatile region in the world for oil, or one that requires a tremendous front end in the form of mining and transportation for coal.  And God forbid I mention the ACTUAL TRACK RECORD of health and environmental issues associated with both.

But wind power gives deniers a a serious case of the sads and they don't like the noise!  I hear it even causes socialism and cancer.

Seriously, every form of power has pluses and minuses.  Renewables have problems - wind turbines require concrete, steel and fiberglass, solar requires toxic dopants and aluminum (high embedded energy) and battery storage takes a lot of raw materials (cobalt, lithium.)  But the right thing to look at is the net cost/pollution/resource depletion per megawatt-hour produced - and in those categories renewables have big advantages over fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJL said:

Seriously, the resistance to this concept is astounding, as if we'd rather be tied into a market that fluctuates every time something happens in the most volatile region in the world for oil, or one that requires a tremendous front end in the form of mining and transportation for coal.  And God forbid I mention the ACTUAL TRACK RECORD of health and environmental issues associated with both.

OK...that line of thinking works.  But that's not the message to the rest of the country; the rallying cry of man made climate change is actually getting in the way of accomplishing the green agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

OK...that line of thinking works.  But that's not the message to the rest of the country; the rallying cry of man made climate change is actually getting in the way of accomplishing the green agenda.

I was thinking about the fact that the Senate is R controlled right now and the House can't get any environmental measures through because they're too progressive for R constituents and their support plays out more like 1970's era anti-nuke marches.  It would tickle me silly if the R's created their own workable solution, ran it through and were able to take the credit for the US turning the corner on Climate Change issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3