Posts: 10,221
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
"Yeah... no. More like misuse."
Jeremy, I agree although I'm not sure misuse is the right word. In another thread geochem and myself discussed how journalists misrepresent science. In this case, it's not that the science explaining climate change is wrong, it's the journalists trying to explain things to the public who screw up. Same goes for the link Mangosteen provided.
EW - I lived here over two decades now and have seen the weather patterns change significantly in that time, both in Puna and on Mauna Kea's summit. The changes are certainly consistent with long-term climate change but on their own don't mean much so won't claim them as significant evidence. However, given the evidence from around the globe, I believe a very significant change in our planet's climate has begun.
Posts: 4,248
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
The navy predicts that climate change will lead to more—and more-prolonged—droughts, which in turn will raise the potential for more military interventions.
------------
And right there is the Navy agenda and why they are willing to play along. They are using climate change to justify their reasoning for more money for more boats.
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
In Hilo the average number of days a year over 90 degrees has increased from:
1960 - 8 days over 90 degrees
2018 - 41 days
2100 - 122 days
Here’s an app that allows you to put in your birth year and hometown, and see how temperatures are increasing over time:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018...etown.html
At a White House meeting in June, President Trump reportedly told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
Most of the observed changes in temps are due to changes in the area surrounding the measuring station. For example in Chicago, station used to be surrounded by an orchard, now it is an Int'l Airport. There are hundreds of similar examples.
Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance
Posts: 11,020
Threads: 750
Joined: Sep 2012
Asphalt and concrete absorbing heat from the year round tropical sun and never completely cooling off. Hilo was much smaller, and had many fewer paved streets and buildings.
...
changes in temps are due to changes in the area surrounding the measuring station.
Are temperatures higher in cities which now have more roads, runways, and buildings? Yes
Are temperatures higher at rural measuring stations with no substantive increase in roads or buildings, places like Mountain View or Waimea*? Yes
Why leave out that fact? Why tell only half the story? Isn't that perhaps flawed reasoning, or manipulating climate data, which you claim you're against?
* Farmers in Waimea have been forced to change the vegetable varieties they use on their farms, because daytime temperatures, nighttime temperatures, and rainfall totals all affect their crop, and those factors have all changed. This is happening all across the world to farmers, another group which, like the US Navy**, is not prone to a liberal stance or falling for half baked conspiracy theories.
** The US Navy is not "using climate change to justify their reasoning for more money for more boats." Any Seaman Apprentice at Pearl Harbor can tell you (or perhaps save time and read the article I linked which you you clearly didn't bother to read, yet felt a "reply" was necessary), that most of the planned changes by the Navy are focused on upgraded facilities due to rising sea levels (somewhat noticeable and important to the Navy), alternate sources of energy (solar, biodiesel) and supply chain links between Navy facilities and off base private companies.
Imagine if Hurricane Lane had dumped 50 inches of rain on Pearl Harbor and Honolulu instead of Mountain View? Could the Navy function as required? Think food, drinking & bathing water, HECO... Yes they can operate at emergency thresholds, but certainly nowhere near 100% efficiency. This might be acceptable in a once in 100 year scenario, but not once every 3 years or 5 years. That's what the Navy is planning for.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 493
Threads: 82
Joined: Mar 2013
My town (of currently 200k people) is not available. The closest city is known for microclimates and cool weather, so no data of 90 plus days (not so). It has suggested I choose NYC or New Delhi....
Posts: 761
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2014
Coming from a perspective of a career at a national weapons lab (also not exactly a hotbed of liberals), where global warming has been taken as a given for about 30 years, I'm always a little confused as to what exactly the counter-argument is. It seems to get lost in the weeds of data variances and politics. Look, it's complicated, but in the end, simple:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been shown in lab tests for a hundred years. The planet Venus, which runs about 400 degrees warmer than its proximity to the sun would indicate (but has an atmosphere of mostly CO2) is exhibit B. More CO2 = higher temperatures. Not subject to debate.
2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels (as measured at the station on Mauna Loa *HAWAII CONTENT*). Ergo, warmer.
The counter-arguments seem to weave between three threads:
1. It's a grand conspiracy and all scientists are lying about CO2 so that... umm, gets murky..."Q" or something. So PhDs can make $70K a year as climatologists? (Cue Dr. Evil demanding A MILLION DOLLARS) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR1H5tf5wE.
2. Climate changes over time historically so what's the big deal? This one seems to come up when every year when the world sets a another high for hottest temperatures on record. The big deal is that while, thru advances in technology, the world somehow manages to keep yet another billion upon billion fed, that won't happen if the climate changes radically. As is (was?), conditions are pretty optimal. Billions staving = bad. Billions starving + ample nuclear weapons = very bad. Also: hurricanes, floods, pestilence, etc. It's way cheaper just to plop up some solar panels and windmills. Look, even if you think there is only a small chance of all this happening, who wants to play Russian Roulette?
3. CO2 warms things up, but not as much as scientists are projecting. This is your best bet, and should sound plausible for another decade or so. Unfortunately, it just sort of kicks the can down the road a few years. Look, even if global warming never comes to pass, we're going to run out of fossil fuels eventually. Either way, we need to find other energy sources.
Posts: 105
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2017
3. Current proven coal reserves are said to be enough to power the world for another 150 years. Natural gas and oil? About 50 years. And these are very conservative estimates.
We've been told for decades how we are going to run out of fossil fuels and as the years go by, new technology gives us more and more ways to find undiscovered reserves. Global oil production and proven reserves continue to surge. Reserves are higher today than they have ever been in the history of oil production. Billions of gallons of oil are not even counted because they are considered to costly to drill for, but tomorrow's technology will be able to extract tham.
The fact is that the earth will never run out of fossil fuels. Technology will make them obsolete long before the oil and coal reserves run out.
Posts: 11,020
Threads: 750
Joined: Sep 2012
The fact is that the earth will never run out of fossil fuels.
Even if true, for the sake of argument, Hawaii is better off with geothermal power, wind power, and even solar - - pv panels need only be shipped in once, not over & over & over...
Also, geothermal, wind turbines and solar do not release vast quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere as fossil fuels do, one of the main contributers to climate change. This view is supported by the US Navy, farmers, a member of Punaweb who worked at a national weapons lab, pretty much everyone except blond bimbo TelePrompTer readers, and their loyal audience.
At a White House meeting in June, President Trump reportedly told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 148
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2014
"new technology gives us more and more ways to find undiscovered reserves"
i.e. we're scraping the bottom of the barrel
"Reserves are higher today than they have ever been"
Suggest you look up "demand destruction"
"The fact is that the earth will never run out of fossil fuels."
Only because once energy from fossil fuels falls to 1.0 EROEI, it won't be worth pumping out.
"Technology will make them obsolete long before the oil and coal reserves run out"
Unless you yourself are working hard to insure this will come to pass, this is nothing more than blind faith.
Posts: 105
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2017
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
The fact is that the earth will never run out of fossil fuels.
Even if true, for the sake of argument, Hawaii is better off with geothermal power, wind power, and even solar - - pv panels need only be shipped in once, not over & over & over...
Also, geothermal, wind turbines and solar do not release vast quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere as fossil fuels do, one of the main contributers to climate change. This view is supported by the US Navy, farmers, a member of Punaweb who worked at a national weapons lab, pretty much everyone except blond bimbo TelePrompTer readers, and their loyal audience.
At a White House meeting in June, President Trump reportedly told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that “I remember Pearl Harbor.”
What is the Big Island supposed to do over the years with the thousands of solar panels that break or malfunction? Send them to the dump? They are loaded with toxic chemicals. Not exactly what we want buried in a landfill.
The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.
https://sciencing.com/toxic-chemicals-so...18393.html
|
