Politicians try to scare you, so that you'll need them to "fix" the problem. Get some self-respect. Don't keep falling for it.
An Inconvenient Truth: Gore is wrong
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Politicians try to scare you, so that you'll need them to "fix" the problem. Get some self-respect. Don't keep falling for it.
I am an environmentalist and professional scientist, and I support rapid changeover to non-fossil sources, such as wind and nuclear, along with re-electricfication of global transportation.
Hydroelectric has been tapped out as the best places for dams have been mapped out, and climate change will probably hurt hydropower as there is less snowpack in higher latitudes.
To the weenies who complain about wind farms or nuclear power plants: butch up. This is a global emergency. Worrying about 20,000 years of waste can wait while we try to make it through the next 200.
Hydroelectric has been tapped out as the best places for dams have been mapped out, and climate change will probably hurt hydropower as there is less snowpack in higher latitudes.
To the weenies who complain about wind farms or nuclear power plants: butch up. This is a global emergency. Worrying about 20,000 years of waste can wait while we try to make it through the next 200.
"The earth's temperature rises and falls normally. That is what the debate is about."
That is true: and it's exactly what the climate scientists have been entangling for decades. The conclusion is that the human-induced component is now major, qualitatively and quantitatively and no other explanation matches the observations.
Ignorant people also go on about the 'global cooling' supposed "hype" in the 1970's as if that were somehow an argument against warming today.
Here is the reality. Firstly, in the 1970's there was not actual major alarm among climate scientists about the imminence of global cooling at all, and their fundamental observations remain true today.
Namely that there are natural cycles of ice ages and these are driven to a large measure by immutable phenomena of planetary orbital dynamics. And that we are presently in an interglacial period which has a length similar to the upper end of previous ones in the climate record. So without human influences there would probably be an ice age but this timescale is more in the thousands of years. In the 1970's they also already had some idea that the emission of CO2 by humans would have an effect, but it was unclear which way the balance would go.
That question has been settled conclusively: in the next 500 years at a minimum the human induced global warming will be significantly more powerful and its effects are now quite clear and they are quite significant to an alarming degree now that we have much better observations and computations.
In sum, the scientists weren't hyping then, they weren't wrong then, and they aren't hyping now and they aren't wrong now.
By the way, scientists only give out forecasts to 2050 in public. Do you want to know why? Because most of the forecasts for the subsequent 50 years are so much worse (in terms of human consequences, though uncertainties are larger) that if they were publicized it would scare people so much that the scientists would be accused emotionally.
Already observed phenomena have turned out to result in warming and effects rather towards the 'bad side' of the uncertainties in models from say 1990 or 1995.
That is true: and it's exactly what the climate scientists have been entangling for decades. The conclusion is that the human-induced component is now major, qualitatively and quantitatively and no other explanation matches the observations.
Ignorant people also go on about the 'global cooling' supposed "hype" in the 1970's as if that were somehow an argument against warming today.
Here is the reality. Firstly, in the 1970's there was not actual major alarm among climate scientists about the imminence of global cooling at all, and their fundamental observations remain true today.
Namely that there are natural cycles of ice ages and these are driven to a large measure by immutable phenomena of planetary orbital dynamics. And that we are presently in an interglacial period which has a length similar to the upper end of previous ones in the climate record. So without human influences there would probably be an ice age but this timescale is more in the thousands of years. In the 1970's they also already had some idea that the emission of CO2 by humans would have an effect, but it was unclear which way the balance would go.
That question has been settled conclusively: in the next 500 years at a minimum the human induced global warming will be significantly more powerful and its effects are now quite clear and they are quite significant to an alarming degree now that we have much better observations and computations.
In sum, the scientists weren't hyping then, they weren't wrong then, and they aren't hyping now and they aren't wrong now.
By the way, scientists only give out forecasts to 2050 in public. Do you want to know why? Because most of the forecasts for the subsequent 50 years are so much worse (in terms of human consequences, though uncertainties are larger) that if they were publicized it would scare people so much that the scientists would be accused emotionally.
Already observed phenomena have turned out to result in warming and effects rather towards the 'bad side' of the uncertainties in models from say 1990 or 1995.
===============
Ric;
Actually can vouch for much of that hunting experience;
not the global warming part but most of US use the weather excuse when we dont score. Too cold, too hot , too much rain not enough rain
Easier to use the cold/gacier excuse in 70s ;media was hyping ice age danger back then. Laugh out loud.
Have a polar bear video ,they go after the big ones not the little bears, just like ''Teddy Roosevelt.
Hunter missed a big bear, Abraham was the gude;
no global warming, Hunter reloaded , got a big bear
Actually weather does play a part in wildlife management;
.is part of a truthful tactful response. Interesting topic
=====================================
Also the enviremental wackos hate the hydroelectric dams;
never mind the fact snowfall doesnt even count in much of them,
never mind all the fish/fish tournaments helped by them,
never mind all the flood damage pre TN Valley Association.
Never mind the dam-flood control of most all major waterways,
never mind dams help barge trffic, much cheaper transport of ;
coal,
corn,
scrap steel,
soybeans,
wheat,
oil,
Interesting, those are in Republican & Democratic districts .
I enjoyed your post. Can you address the two articles that I posted. Especially the interview with Ball. I would assume you agree with him, but the contention would be that the cooling would be much more considerable, but for the CO2 emissions quelling it.
I'm also curious if you know anything about the technology from the video I posted. I'd appreciate your info. I personally am for nuclear power. It is a lot safer than people tend to understand, and the efficiency of it is far beyond any other source at our disposal.
For me, where the political problem comes in is that Democrats want a reduction in fossil fuel use, but offer no solution that can work as efficiently as fossil fuels. We are an industrialized nation, and our entire livelihood and economy is based upon that efficiency. We could have reduced our CO2 emissions decades ago, but the misunderstandings about progressive technologies (nuclear power) were shouted down by many.
Regarding the interview by Ball.
The cooling I was referring to is more the large scale ice ages which are on longer term cycles given by orbital dynamics.
The problem I have with many of the "cycleologists" is that to some significant degree it is post-hoc "numerology", i.e. seeing a pattern in numbers without explanations, and assuming some pattern (as the human eye sees it) will continue, "just because".
Acutal climate scientists have found that basing predictions on physics and observations is critical.
Historical inferred records are in fact extremely important in climatology but not for finding "cycles" per se and immediately extrapolating them as numbers, but in terms of using them to understand large scale physical phenomena.
The essential point which scientists understand and most people find difficult to understand is that, even in the past, "climate cycles" had specific physical, mechanistic causes. If modern science had been around then, we would have known.
Of course climatologists know very well about the fluctuations in the solar cycle. There is no evidence that the Sun is going to rescue us. Also much of the discussion from Ball is from the narrow viewpoint of Canada and northern Europe, for which cold is a major problem.
Well, a billion people live in India and it is already damn freaking HOT there.
The primary mechanism of human suffering from climate change will be through horrible drought. In almost all places in the globe, agriculture is constrained not by heat or CO2 (which by itself would increase productivity) but by fresh water.
Canada is an exception and its agriculture will benefit, as will Russia's, from global warming. Almost everybody else will be really hurt.
By the way, 15,000-30,000 people died a few years ago from a totally unexpected heat wave in a European summer.
Those numbers are the casualty toll one would expect from a highly competent terrorist nuclear fission weapon, and now terrorists are very far from having that capability.
As far as 'running things on water': 100% bullshit.
The cooling I was referring to is more the large scale ice ages which are on longer term cycles given by orbital dynamics.
The problem I have with many of the "cycleologists" is that to some significant degree it is post-hoc "numerology", i.e. seeing a pattern in numbers without explanations, and assuming some pattern (as the human eye sees it) will continue, "just because".
Acutal climate scientists have found that basing predictions on physics and observations is critical.
Historical inferred records are in fact extremely important in climatology but not for finding "cycles" per se and immediately extrapolating them as numbers, but in terms of using them to understand large scale physical phenomena.
The essential point which scientists understand and most people find difficult to understand is that, even in the past, "climate cycles" had specific physical, mechanistic causes. If modern science had been around then, we would have known.
Of course climatologists know very well about the fluctuations in the solar cycle. There is no evidence that the Sun is going to rescue us. Also much of the discussion from Ball is from the narrow viewpoint of Canada and northern Europe, for which cold is a major problem.
Well, a billion people live in India and it is already damn freaking HOT there.
The primary mechanism of human suffering from climate change will be through horrible drought. In almost all places in the globe, agriculture is constrained not by heat or CO2 (which by itself would increase productivity) but by fresh water.
Canada is an exception and its agriculture will benefit, as will Russia's, from global warming. Almost everybody else will be really hurt.
By the way, 15,000-30,000 people died a few years ago from a totally unexpected heat wave in a European summer.
Those numbers are the casualty toll one would expect from a highly competent terrorist nuclear fission weapon, and now terrorists are very far from having that capability.
As far as 'running things on water': 100% bullshit.
Sorry I didn't read further on Ball's talk. I am now pretty negative on him.
Ball's contention that "the 'hockey stick' graph is wrong" is itself wrong.
www.realclimate.org has details, and the National Academy of Sciences (by far the most prestigious and official organ of US science & policy) confirmed it.
There are other effects that ground level pollution has (temporarily) lowered temperature (and causing much disease) as did Mt Pinatubo's eruption. Those effects have now been accounted for and are physically declining and the data now really matches the predictions better than before.
The contention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas is true, but completely beside the point because on a global scale we're talking about the water cycle is in physical equilibrium (roughly) with the vast oceans and so human activity has no direct significant effect on it.
At this point mentioning that "water vapor is a major greenhouse gas" without discussing the full picture only serves as diversionary propaganda to instill in the listener's mind doubts---seemingly quite reasonable to entertain but in fact, erroenous---that "gee maybe what humans are doing is really not that significant compared to the HUGE world", which is, unfortunately, not true.
Common sense does not serve this problem well. Laws of physics do.
Ball's contention that "the 'hockey stick' graph is wrong" is itself wrong.
www.realclimate.org has details, and the National Academy of Sciences (by far the most prestigious and official organ of US science & policy) confirmed it.
There are other effects that ground level pollution has (temporarily) lowered temperature (and causing much disease) as did Mt Pinatubo's eruption. Those effects have now been accounted for and are physically declining and the data now really matches the predictions better than before.
The contention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas is true, but completely beside the point because on a global scale we're talking about the water cycle is in physical equilibrium (roughly) with the vast oceans and so human activity has no direct significant effect on it.
At this point mentioning that "water vapor is a major greenhouse gas" without discussing the full picture only serves as diversionary propaganda to instill in the listener's mind doubts---seemingly quite reasonable to entertain but in fact, erroenous---that "gee maybe what humans are doing is really not that significant compared to the HUGE world", which is, unfortunately, not true.
Common sense does not serve this problem well. Laws of physics do.
The idea that only Democrats were responsible for the demise of nuclear power is not true.
The other fact was free-market capitalism.
For many years (until 2 or 3 years ago) natural gas was very cheap and gas powered plants much cheaper to operate, and get permitted.
Then, with the deregulation of power utilities, there was much more emphasis on earnings per share, and much less on strategic issues like diversity of supply.
Short term price signals and some emissions controls rules, which meant phasing out oil (price), moderating coal (emission regulation) and rapid expansion of natural gas.
Hence, little new power capacity other than natural gas.
Well unfortunately Peak North American Gas is coming. Gas wells deplete much more precipitously than do oil wells and it is alot harder to import from overseas. Yeah I favor LNG terminals (butch up environmentalists) too, but nukes would be alot better. We will need the high quality hydrocarbons (oil and gas) for transportation.
If I were emperor, I would socialize electric utilities as a strategic necessity and put lots of capital in wind and nuclear in preparation for the disaster of Peak Oil. That will effect many more people than global warming in an immediate $$$ sense. I worry that the reactions will be the wrong ones: drill in Alaska (not much oil there), and crank up the coal which is horrible climate crack.
The other fact was free-market capitalism.
For many years (until 2 or 3 years ago) natural gas was very cheap and gas powered plants much cheaper to operate, and get permitted.
Then, with the deregulation of power utilities, there was much more emphasis on earnings per share, and much less on strategic issues like diversity of supply.
Short term price signals and some emissions controls rules, which meant phasing out oil (price), moderating coal (emission regulation) and rapid expansion of natural gas.
Hence, little new power capacity other than natural gas.
Well unfortunately Peak North American Gas is coming. Gas wells deplete much more precipitously than do oil wells and it is alot harder to import from overseas. Yeah I favor LNG terminals (butch up environmentalists) too, but nukes would be alot better. We will need the high quality hydrocarbons (oil and gas) for transportation.
If I were emperor, I would socialize electric utilities as a strategic necessity and put lots of capital in wind and nuclear in preparation for the disaster of Peak Oil. That will effect many more people than global warming in an immediate $$$ sense. I worry that the reactions will be the wrong ones: drill in Alaska (not much oil there), and crank up the coal which is horrible climate crack.