| . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >> |
| Author |
Message |
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Nov 2018 07:43pm
Reply
Wondering what your region might look like soon?
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/redrawing-worlds-climate-maps
|
|
MikeOnBear
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Nov 2018 08:23pm
Reply
That is really interesting. Especially the tornado shift. Coming from someone who lost a house to one in 2014 and had one peter out as it passed within 100ft of our rebuilt house just 3 weeks ago.
|
|
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Nov 2018 08:39pm
Reply
I was not aware of the 100th meridian. The difference between the eastern and western climates is so dramatic. As it shifts east the southern and western states will dry out and their wildfire potential goes through the roof.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:08am
Reply
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-in-the-next-15-years
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:10am
Reply
http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-gores-10-global-warming-predictions.html
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:14am
Reply
Bill Bye. Climate "Expert"
https://www.bing.com/search?q=bill+nye+degree&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
Engineering degree. No degree in Celsius or Fahrenheit.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:36am
Reply
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice -cap-grows-29-year.html
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:44am
Reply
I wish our local weather guy on TV, could predict the weather next week, not the next 100 years. Last week we were supposed to get a couple inches of snow. I got a slight sun/wind burn on my face. LOL.
|
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 12:56am
Reply
Oxymoron.
Eco Friendly car
| 
Power source/electric car
|  | |
|
|
spoofer
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 01:09pm
Reply
darz
Not sure where you live, but here in New York only about 1% of electricity is generated by coal.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Dec 2018 10:03pm
Reply
Yes, we have loads of hydro electric in my state, go to the mid west, south, they use lots of coal and natural gas.
I'm with darz on man made global warming. Its all cyclical and normal. Look up milanovitch cycles.
And this is coming from a global cooling survivor just 40 years ago.
I actually watch this show on TV last in 1997, its hard to find now.
"In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 10:05am
Reply
Oh no.
Look at the science. Over 400 ppm CO2.
When have humans had to adjust their waste disposal strategies in the evolution of civilization.
Always. From managing our "wastes" with sewage systems, to putting our garbage on the curb to be taken away and processed.
What don't folks get? You treat the atmosphere as a waste dump site, pour giga tonnes of waste into it. Hey, it gets dirty and bad stuff happens.
I could point to thousands of real scientific reports on climate change. I could tell, again, the story of how as a 16 year old boy (1976) my personal relationship with climate change began in a university lecture hall (Duke).
But the thing is: we have a waste management problem. We need to clean it up.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 11:28am - Edited by: ICC
Reply
Quoting: creeky ... You treat the atmosphere as a waste dump site, pour giga tonnes of waste into it. Hey, it gets dirty and bad stuff happens... ...the thing is: we have a waste management problem. We need to clean it up.
 Ditto, rivers, lakes, oceans...
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 11:52am - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
CO2 concentration has been, bioth greater and less than it in now, before mankind according to ice core plugs. Also temps have been much warmer and much cooler. Long before man and the industrial revolution. Science have been using "models", that isnt science, its theory or guess and manipulatring inputs to get desired output.
Pollution is one thing, but CO2 is a natural life giving gas and they use PPM (parts per million), because its scarier sounding. When 350PPM was the norm. 50PPM is the end of life as we know it? More CO2 results in more plant growth and it will naturally absorb excess CO2. In percentage, we are talking from .0038% to now .0039%
In reality, actual oxygen content has dropped from a high of almost 35% to a suffocating 21% now. 
Now no one is for pollution in creeks I bet, in this entire forum. Or for pollution in the air.
I always ask people who buy into this is "what is the ideal earth temp and how did you come to that conclusion", they have no answer.
We have only been keeping records from about mid 1800's with crude equipment and satellite imaging started in 1979, this isn't even a pico second of a millisecond in the overall life of this place.
Its been warmer than when I was a kid, but its part of a natural cycle. I see we are now entering a solar minimum which plays a huge roll in earths temps (maunder minimum, mine ice age etc) and the milankovitch cycle (wobble and elliptical orbit)
|
|
Bret
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 01:17pm
Reply
Not just a solar minimum, but a GRAND solar minimum. Last time that happened was in the mid to late 1600's. "The Little Ice Age".
This could be looked at as good news and counter act the "global warming" that we are now so immersed in. Sarcasm alert.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 01:42pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Downside to colder weather is, it kills way more people than warmer weather.
I know members opinions on this differ, and its always been kept civil which I appreciate.
Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 02:31pm
Reply
Quoting: creeky But the thing is: we have a waste management problem. We need to clean it up.
Agreed, but far more with the 2nd and 3rd world nations than with us. They need to clean it up...and without our money. Like TMT says, no one is 'for' polluting this beautiful planet, it's the knee-jerk way this is always 'pushed' down our throats.
For Instance: They are banning plastic straws in stupid CA. Is that a bad idea? Probably not, it's how it was done, through lies and half truths....
'Oh dear there are 500 million straws used every day in the US' This was made up by an 9 yr old for a school project, and it not close to true, yet it is/was used to promote the ban. Our National Park service even adopted this number and it is in wide usage.....
He/they admit now that it's wrong but it's ok because it serves their noble goal......this is where they lose me. Can the left/liberal/tree-huggers just be truthful and honest for once?
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 05:17pm - Edited by: creeky
Reply
Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech hen 350PPM was the norm. 50PPM is the end of life
This is why science is important. 350ppm was never the norm. At the beginning of the industrial age CO2 was 275. We talked in the late 70s about 350 as the danger point. CO2 had been rising about 10 ppm per 50 years. It was at 325 when I was a boy. We thought we had until 2050.
Nobody saw the Chinese/Asia/India industrial revolution.
The thing is. Nobody is saying we have to pay to clean up other people's messes. What you need to do is to take responsibility for yourself. If you can do that. Clean up your mess. Reduce your CO2. We'll be fine.
This isn't the first time we've had to clean up our mess. Look at SO2 in the 70s. Acid rain. Ya. We saw a problem. We fixed it. Today, a mere 50 years later, over 90% of the lakes are showing some sign of recovery. Almost 1/2 are fully recovered.
Thousands of farms are in better shape. Millions of lives are improved through a healthier environment.
Pollution, CO2, its going to hurt people. Period.
So, taking responsibility for myself, I like to look at the future and build according to what I see. I see a problem. And dammit. I'm going to help fix it. Not leave it to someone else.
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 05:39pm
Reply
Quoting: creeky What you need to do is to take responsibility for yourself. If you can do that. Clean up your mess. Reduce your CO2. We'll be fine.
Agreed...we all should, and I'm guessing that those of us on this forum do.
Quoting: creeky Nobody is saying we have to pay to clean up other people's messes.
I'm not saying that you are thinking this, but that's how this usually goes..they do a 'Paris Climate Accord' and soak the wealthier countries for big bucks.....
|
|
rockies
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 06:21pm - Edited by: rockies
Reply
I find it funny that people will endlessly debate the science as to "whether it's true, whether it's not" quoting articles, studies, etc but don't seem to touch on any possible solutions. Saying "we should use less" is not a solution.
I was watching a news show on replacements for single use Styrofoam fast food containers. Used once and sits in a landfill for years, if not decades. Turns out there's a compostable container that's made of entirely natural materials available that costs less to produce and purchase than Styrofoam. Why isn't everyone using it? Can you imagine what might happen if enough people told a restaurant owner that they won't buy their product because of the packaging?
How many products do you use once and then throw away that could be replaced by something recyclable or reusable?
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Dec 2018 10:29pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Some assume no one in here recycles, reuses or conserves? Why is that?
In addition to being clean and a recycler, having a 40 acre timber farm, makes me carbon neutral. How is that for being green! 
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Dec 2018 11:02am
Reply
Quoting: Borrego those of us on this forum do
That's it exactly. We're kinda talking to the choir here. Folks who live close to nature get it.
And lots of folks are doing something. Look at china; tho, they have a longer way to go, they've cancelled all of their new coal plants including some already started; are going all in on solar)
I do get a bit itchy when I see the science being rejected.
But I'm actually excited to see the changes coming in the next decade. We have the opportunity to build a quieter, cleaner environment. And that will be neat.
One easy active step is to use electric tools. I'm buying an electric snowblower this year. I'll let ya'll know how it works out.
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Dec 2018 11:17am
Reply
Quoting: creeky use electric tools. I'm buying an electric snowblower this year. I'll let ya'll know how it works out.
I have a friend in Winnipeg who has used an electric snowblower for years. His works fine though he doesn't use it much anymore because he spends most of the winter down here in the SW US.
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Dec 2018 09:16pm
Reply
Quoting: creeky One easy active step is to use electric tools.
One must be aware however, that the generation of electricity requires energy...and far more than half (in the US) comes from evil fossil fuels...
But I'm sure y'all know that.....
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Dec 2018 10:50pm
Reply
Quoting: creeky I do get a bit itchy when I see the science being rejected.
When most of us went to school. Science taught us that there are 9 planets in our solar system. 100% fact. No doubt.
Now they teach our children that there are 8 planets..??? What happened to Pluto??
That is science rejecting science.
|
|
Ontario lakeside
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Dec 2018 11:29pm
Reply
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard Feynman
|
|
Borrego
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Dec 2018 10:21am
Reply
Quoting: Ontario lakeside The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Hmmmm.....that could be directed at either side of this one....
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Dec 2018 11:03am
Reply
And is true of each side.
That's the beautiful thing about science. It doesn't say "I'm right and only I am right." It says, "here is the data. Fellow researchers, can you check my data?" And then, after the peer review, asks, "Dear peers, do you agree with these conclusions or theories?"
My question becomes, "has the data that has been peer reviewed been distorted or not presented accurately." Then, as a peer, I say. "Wait. The data you are presenting is not correct."
So in the case of Pluto the definition of what a planet is was changed. The review of the planets based on the new definition meant that Pluto was no longer described as a planet. I mean its still there. It didn't disappear. Its just not large enough to fit in the planet category.
So with the changes to our planet; the extinction events, the change of acidity in the oceans, the substantial change in CO2 levels, etc. If you can present data that shows those things are not happening. That the data is somehow wrong...
I would revisit my conclusions and theories.
|
|
Cowracer
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Dec 2018 11:46am - Edited by: Cowracer
Reply
Personally, my thought are:
The environment has been changing since way before man arrived. It will keep changing long after we are gone.
Any graph on earth temp, when looked at thru a narrow enough lens (say about 200 years), can be alarming
But look at it over a few hundred thousand years and you see a natural cycle.
I find it curious and misleading that anyone advocating the human cause of climate change only uses a graph that goes back a couple hundred years. Narrowing it down and only going back 51 years (to my birth) will likewise conclusively prove that I am the major cause to global warming.
Data can inform, but it can also mislead.
Tim
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Dec 2018 08:41am
Reply
Tim, I'm with you.
This is basically the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by man and its used just to raise taxes on all energy. France was just hit with this massive cost, you can see the rioting.
Anyone who thinks you can change the earths temp by confiscating your earnings is a fool.
I have no issues with other energy sources, build it, if it works well and cost effective, people will buy it. We are seeing it with solar.
I know every member in here is a good steward of the environment, its just part of being a cabineer.
|
|
| . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . >> |
