OT: Global warming deniers debunked

Page 7 of 13  


You are right, correlation doesn't prove causation. Some things are really difficult to prove totally and unequivocally. So if all the correlations seem to support the hypothesis, as do theoretical reasonings, as well as partial experiments of what has happened and what might happen, than perhaps correlation is the best we can do.

I think that in many people's views, the cost of not doing something about the greeenhouse effects is enormously greater (although later) then not doing something about it. For instance, if warming would increase the volume of the oceans, and then reduce land are on the planet, the surface of the oceans would increase to some extent, and hence the ability to evaporate more water, water vapor is a greeenhouse gas and will cause further warming, etc, etc. The extent of land area inundated by the oceans in this way may not be all that great, but a very large percentage of peoples and businesses are on/in that land, in the US, and worldwide.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Aha, but water vapor can cool (clouds) as well as heat. Check your stats there, sir. Effects depend upon distribution. This is another area where we're pretty uninformed about our climate. It's too big to measure and/or predict. So far, theories and models are incomplete and quite unreliable.

Han, what is your assessment of 1) the IPCC reports, 2) the Kyoto Protocol/Treaty, and 3) Cap & Trade effects on climate?
Zero net change at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars does not make any of them good investments in my book. But I'm conservative. ;)
My assessment: 1) IPCC reports use "may" and "could" far too much. Even they can't make solid predictions. And each report so far has reduced the alarmist temperature rises by a degree or two. Besides, that's not a scientific group, it's a political group. <sigh>
2) Kyoto's net effect would be absolutely zero on the climate.
3) C&T doesn't change behavior one iota, it just adds cost to dirty business.
How can any of this help, if that were possible?
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Political reports and tax policies that are difficult to enforce globally, to say the least? I think they may all not be more than points for discussion.

Often, getting off your arse and starting to do something costs money for countries. Bureaucracies waste money, but how do we build a consensus?

see above

see above

If one adds a cost to do business as usual, maybe the free market can find a better way?

If people do not want to change, the consequences could (yes, that word) dire (alarmist alarm!!).
This Irene, like Floyd a few years back has wreaked havoc here in Bergen and Passaic counties. This time also almost everywhere along the NE seaboard and in a large part of New England. It's a week since and flooding is still severe here for those affected directly (I live a mile or so away). Good thing I have another way to drive to EWR this morning ...
Whether or not the storms are getting more severe these last few years may still be open for debate, but hereabouts we have now had at least 3 100-year floods in the last 3 years. Pity those who chose (that's the past tense, right?) to live in areas subject to flooding.
Ridgewood is a rather rich suburb, and they chose to build in the flood plain of a small river/creek: <http://tinyurl.com/3pzgcfq or <http://fairlawn.patch.com/articles/irene-strikes-bergen-county#photo - 7588002> Many schools will delay opening because they need to dry out and get decontaminated. Yes, stupid to build where they did, and stupid to not take precautions ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Making the switch from filthy coal to clean nuclear would solve your carbon/CO2 problem overnight. Nudging the liberal nuke haters on that one would go far. Convincing the EPA and eco-terrorist groups that small worldwide change versus drastic local change under the gun is the better of the two tactics.

We need to get the gov't out of politics <titter> and politics out of the market to allow free markets to do their jobs. They listen to the people, and people are definitely changing without gov't interference.

Yes, and the sky could fall (only on Manhattan) tomorrow. One just never knows!

Yes, and yes. And please remember that changes (deforestation) in the tropical rainforests affect us up here on the northern continent. But that was yesterday's scapegoat. AGWK is today's monster. Yes, weather changes and we can't forecast it properly yet. Build accordingly.
And if we can't predict the -week- ahead, what makes you think we can possibly predict the century ahead any more precisely, hmm? Why do Believers believe?

Ridgewood doesn't deserve federal funds to pay for their own arrogant stupidity. It seems that everyone just says "OK, go ahead and build there. The insurance company and federal gov't will pay for new buildings if there is any problem." We have to stop thinking and acting that way.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm for nukes. But there need to be more/better safeguards.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/3/2011 7:04 AM, Han wrote:

It is pretty much a known fact that the more the population expands and decreases run off areas the more there will be 100 year floods.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

infrequent) the floods. When you push Mother Nature around, she pushes back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It can be done. But there needs to be an overflow area to acts as a buffer. That is mostly a problem for river systems, rather than ocean systems. I used to live next to the Rhine in Holland - use google earth and find Wageningen, Netherlands. This shows the "uninhabited" land next to the river, used as an overflow for when the Rhine was swollen. Used to happen mostly in wintertime and those vast expanses of shallow water could freeze and provide tremendously large areas to go skating ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you want to build a swimming pool around the entire nation, maybe but do note that the rain does fall on the plain. It's far easier just to not build were Mother Nature consistently wants to be a mother.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. Just like we found out the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't always get it right, so did the Dutch. There was a huge evolution of the 50-year Deltaplan after the floods of '53, and some aspects are still regretted. But they did learn to live with it. I don't remember the exact number, but there was a reduction in coastline that is defended against the seas of some few thousand miles to a few hundred.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are some examples of what they regretted, Han? I suppose some fisheries went bust, steer me in direction more info...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wetlands deteriorated (Biesbos and others), fisheries & oysters, mussels were affected. I think in hindsight they wouldn't have made some of the closed dams, but made them open like the Oosterschelde. Don't recall all. IIRC the Deltaplan.nl site isn't too good. Maybe this will work for you: <http://www.watersnoodmuseum.nl/de-deltawerken/het-deltaplan.html Just found that, have not looked at it in detail.
I have always been fascinated by that megawork.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely, but tell them to try that within realistic boundaries, please. Right now, the EPA, in its infinite wisdom, is trying to limit 'bad things' to percentages so small they can't be measured in a top-flight lab, let alone in the field. "0.000001 PPB" my ass, guys.
Have them start on COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS and cut the total output of heat/gases from the human race in half in a day. (Coal no, nukes yes.)
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Coal and oil , and yes, gas-fired powerplants are "bad" in the eyes of the CO2 haters. Nukes are good. But especially coal. And the reasons are obvious. The closer to pure C (like good coal is) the greater the relative amount of CO2 produced when burned. Add some hydrogens to the C, and you get oil, then butane, propane, ethane and methane, in order. For CH4 (methane) much of the energy comes from the conversion of the H's to H2O and far less from the C to CO2 conversion. Ergo, methane is better than C by a long shot. WHich is why I don't understand that there isn't more research into coal to liquid or gas conversion, preferably (I think) using photovoltaically produced hydrogen. But I'm not a chemist in that are at all, so I don't know the costs. Only hat Nazi Germany and later South Africa did get somewhere (at very great cost).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 5:21 PM, Han wrote:

Bit stopping everyone from breathing is not the answer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Rereading Han's last sentence today, I think a better tack is to cause behavioral change in the worst offenders, not limiting anything. Also, how can we change the cost of nuclear power so it can compete with that nasty coal? "Clean coal" is an oxymoron and probably as effective as cap and trade. Both are wastes of money, so use those funds on worthwhile research.
-- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:53:33 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

I think I've said this before, but I used to be a great supporter of nuclear energy. Then I did some software work at a nuclear power plant. Changed my mind completely. The people working that plant would shake anyone's belief in their competence. Incompetence = accidents. Not to mention little things like earthquakes and tidal waves.
I don't know the answers, but my hope is that some combination of wind and solar can be made to work. But we're a long way from that today.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2011 5:35 PM, ChairMan wrote:

Well they can, but first they need to re-position their sensors, or just ignore data that doesn't fit. In other words, lie.
--
Jack
Got Change: Global Warming ======> Global Fraud!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

what impacts on climate change of any sort and, even more important, how man could change it. That is the current point of the debate, not what is happening, but whether it is man-made or naturally occurring or some combination of both.
I

may be most helpful in this manner since they show precipitation and thus atmospheric conditions.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.