|
| Author |
Message |
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Aug 2019 01:18pm
Reply
Newspaper from Aug 14, 1912
|
|
snobdds
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Aug 2019 01:26pm
Reply
The funny thing is, the EPA only really cares about nitrous oxide and particulate matter. CO2 is viewed as plant food.
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Aug 2019 02:41pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
No one heats their homes with coal. We do have coal fired plants, but clean coal and technology to clean output emissions.
CO2 is plant food as snobdds stated, with more CO2, plant life will thrive and absorb the CO2. Earth has a natural way of balancing things out.
CO2 levels have been much higher and much lower than it is now, long before anyone burnt a single chunk of coal.
We have been recording earths temps for about 150 yrs, crude equip in the early year and using satellite starting in 1979. Earths temps have toggled from warm to cold since the very beginning, with smaller oscillation in between the bigger ones.
What is the ideal temps, and how did they come up with that number?
Milanovitch cycles?
How about the conveyor belt affect in the Atlantic where warming leads to cooling. Cool how natures does this.
Now the real crisis, we are down to a suffocating 21% oxygen, we were as high as 35%.
I'm a global cooling survivor just 40 years ago
Science is not guess, not computer models with manipulated inputs.
Lets see if this can be kept to civil dialogue vs attacking those who disagree.
cooling crisis of the 70's
| 
article from the 20's
|  | |
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Aug 2019 05:28pm
Reply
Quite true that we in the west at least, do not burn coal to heat homes anymore. China does use over 3.5 billion tons of coal (as of 2017) which is about 46% of the coal used worldwide.
So called clean coal is cleaner burning than the furnaces used 100 years ago, but very few of our big plants are really clean.
Back in the 70's climate science was still developing. Later looking back has found that there were two major media stories that exploited the few scientific papers that forecast global cooling. Time and Newsweek and many media followers. Research has found only 7 peer reviewed science papers that thought the world would cool. There were 44 papers that projected warming and 20 that were neutral. Peer reviewed papers are much more likely to have good science behind them than media reports.
https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call -for-a-coming-ice-age/
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
|
|
Atlincabin
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Aug 2019 12:28am
Reply
I personally know of people in North America who burn coal to heat their homes. Mostly in inefficient, old coal-fired boilers and such.
|
|
moneypitfeeder
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Aug 2019 04:06pm
Reply
Atlincabin, I agree, there are actually still many homes in PA that heat with coal.
|
|
Fanman
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Aug 2019 07:53pm
Reply
Lots of people (admittedly a small percentage) heat their homes with coal, especially in areas like PA where it's readily available cheap. We have a coal stove in our cabin, and coal is readily available in 50# bags both in upstate NY where the cabin is as well as the hardware store near our home in CT.
Most people, as do I, that still burn coal to heat their homes use anthracite (hard) coal, which burns a lot cleaner than the bituminous (soft) coal commonly used in years past. Modern power plants use soft coal, but with technology that can deal with it.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Aug 2019 12:59am - Edited by: darz5150
Reply
Here is the Oronteus Fineus map published in 1532 showing Antarctica with no ice. Amazingly accurate according to the new experts. Back then. No satelites. No computer models.
So if in 1532 there was no ice. Now there is ice. But its melting. Are we cooling or warming?
Last Sunday was a nice day. Grilled outside etc. Watched the news. Weather forecast/computer models said rain. We got flooded. Never flooded before. Why didn't the computer models tell us we would be flooded?............ ....
Climate change? Yes it does.
If anyone knows a meteorologist or scientist that is 100% accurate. Please let me know. My daughter is getting married in an outside wedding September 28th. It would be helpful to know what the temperature will be (within 1 or 2 degrees) and if it will be rain or shine. (Not too much to ask from the climate change experts?)
That should be an easy forecast. I am not asking for a weather forecast for 9/28/2050. 😀
2 pics below. 1 from 1532. The other is out my back door after listening to the meteorologist puking out what the computer tells them what might happen!
1532 no computers
| 
lookin' out my backdoor
| | |
|
|
|
ICC
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Aug 2019 10:21am - Edited by: ICC
Reply
Quoting: darz5150 Oronteus Fineus map
Reconcile that with ice cores from Antartica that are millions of years old.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/29/scientists-to-take-old-ice-sample s-for-climate-research-east-antarctica
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-cor e-reveals-start-ice-ages
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Aug 2019 03:38pm
Reply
Quoting: darz5150 Why didn't the computer models tell us we would be flooded?
Darz, computer models is not science. Those just help make guesses/theory and when you manipulate the input, the output changes.
Good news, we had a very mild wildfire season this year in my state, lots of rain, 1/10th of last summers fires or less. Told the fires are from warming, so the lack of must be from cooling.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Aug 2019 10:45pm - Edited by: darz5150
Reply
Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech Darz, computer models is not science.
BINGO!
The very next day after the flood...........the weather experts that couldn't forecast impending doom before we got flooded. Predicted and warned of impending doom and flooding based on computer models. So after another half/ sleepless nite. I awoke and fearfully looked outside expecting the worse. After rubbing the sleep from the one eye that I had closed while trying to sleep. I saw........I saw..... A paper towel still intact. Laying on the same patio table that was almost washed away the nite before. It was less wet than the underwear I had on while trying to save the things floating away, in the flood, that the computers/meteorologist/experts didn't warn me about.
As an FYI. The map I posted has nothing to do with climate change. I posted it as bait to see if anyone would be compelled to use it to prove I am a climate dumb a$$. Fish on! I actually saw the map referenced on an episode of Ancient Aliens. My apologies.
I still would appreciate if someone could post a link or scientific chart. Telling me exactly what the temp/weather will be in 6 weeks at my daughters wedding.
One more comment. Climate changes? Yup. Green New Deal. Nope.
AlGorerhythym
| 
Your idea. You pay for it.
| | |
|
|
snobdds
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Aug 2019 06:16pm - Edited by: snobdds
Reply
I'm not a huge climate change believer. I think we have a pollution problem, but climate change and pollution are mutually exclusive and should not be used interchangeably.
I'm an Actuary for the BCBS association. I only deal in CREDIBLE numbers. For data to be credible, it must be; definable, repeatable, and more than 100 unique data points. We also use a fator to adjust data points, 100 points is far less predictable than 1000 points, so we assign a higher credibility to more data points by way of a completion factor.
Climate science with all the above data prerequisites is non existent. The data can not be repeatable, it's not universally definable and there are not enough data points going back to get good credible data. At most we have around 125 years of data compared to the billions of years earth has been around. That might sound like a lot, but considering the time horizon the earth has been around and changing, it's a very small statistical sample. Both sides make some compelling arguments, however both sides have been proven wrong with their theories.
Our species is not going to change the climate, there are forces at work that are far more powerful than human will. I also think it's foolish to try and obtain non-varying weather. The earth has been formed by varying weather patterns for billions of years, I think I would start to worry if the weather all of a sudden started being the same temperature on the same day year after year. I think I will stick with the idea that Climate change is good...
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Aug 2019 08:33pm
Reply
Quoting: darz5150 I still would appreciate if someone could post a link or scientific chart. Telling me exactly what the temp/weather will be in 6 weeks at my daughters wedding. One more comment. Climate changes? Yup. Green New Deal. Nope.
I always ask them "what is the ideal temp, and how did you come to that conclusion"
All I get is crickets. 
|
|
Steve_S
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Aug 2019 11:35am
Reply
   
|
|
Aklogcabin
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Aug 2019 12:42pm
Reply
Maybe it is just me. But I do not like all the acronyms that are used. As in this question. And now it seems that folks try to invent them. I know that I’m old school but to me if anyone expects me to know that name of who they work for by giving me letters. Ain’t happening and I glance over them. They have no credibility because I have no idea who it or what it is.
For me, things change and I can deal with it. I can’t understand why people get paid to try to predict the weather or any of the climate change issues. We can’t do anything about it until it happens and they haven’t, as a group, been correct yet.
Especially if they need government money to support their business plan. Just my thoughts.
|
|
curious
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Sep 2019 11:32pm - Edited by: curious
Reply
Interesting. It is true that back in the 70's there were two camps that differed widely in what they thought was happening or going to happen with Earth's climate. The cooling group and the warming group.
Some of those that thought the Earth was going to cool believed so because they placed more weight on the climate effects of particulate matter pollution. Particulates, also known as aerosols, include the fine soot produced by incomplete combustion among others. They tend to screen the sun and may produce cooling.
The believers in the warming theory believed that the heat trapping ability of gases like CO2 and methane as the larger danger. So there were news media reports going towards cooling and others going towards warming.
Particulate matter pollution had been known for years to also have debilitating health effects. Because of the health dangers we people placed great efforts in cleaning up the air. We did succeed, more in mostly Western counties than Asian. We got rid of a lot of the particulate matter pollution which unwittingly increased the effects on climate of CO2 and methane, our 2 most common greenhouse gases. So not only did the Earth climate not cool, it warmed more rapidly.
Back in the 70's the group of scientists who believed warming was the danger was considerably larger than the cooling believers, just as it is today. Both groups included scientists from different disciplines but there were hardly any true climate scientists in the cooling group.
|
|
darz5150
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Sep 2019 12:17am
Reply
Quoting: toyota_mdt_tech what is the ideal temp
|
|
curious
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Sep 2019 10:56am
Reply
Weather is not the same as climate either.
https://www.generationgenius.com/learn-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate-les son-for-kids/?gclid=CjwKCAjw-7LrBRB6EiwAhh1yX93m82qEvpE4fuAQ91SGROoYTiL4AkE4pEUpKRR8l mB4BFWaU9JsVhoC5p8QAvD_BwE
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Sep 2019 10:34pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Weather gives us climate .
Lots of other things gives us climate changes such as eaaths orbit, milankovitch cycles, earths wobbble. We have zero control over that. Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas.
Question, if CO2 goes up, would plant life thrive? If plant life thrives, would it absorb the CO2?
Funny how nature balances it out. Its actually not a flat temp, its always been cyclical.
|
|
|
