Climate Change Dump #1

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Consensus on AGW is again confirmed, wind and solar use is increasing exponentially, real effects of global warming is happening now, effecting real people, including Donald Trump.



Appearance of crater dubbed ‘the Gateway to the Underworld’ in Siberia is a warning to our warming planet




]

My fave quote from your article:

This includes the last time that the Earth was warmer than it is now, when hippopotamuses and elephants wandered around the future Trafalgar Square.

I bet the light bulb is going to come on any second now.

No? OK. Try this...

This includes the last time that the Earth was warmer than it is now, when hippopotamuses and elephants wandered around the future Trafalgar Square.


How about now?


These guys are kinda eroding the gravitas of having a science degree if you ask me.

[dawei88]

Climate always change.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Purple Farmer]

Originally Posted by avb3

Because hunters and anglers were the original conservationists and always were the canaries in the coal mine. That conservation ethic appears to have dissipated among some of our members. Many are subscribing to the "me" and "mine" philosophy, and the heck with the consequences.

That is not a positive development.

So to be clear, because it appears to you that others do not share the same opinion as you (I say opinion as I do not believe you are employed in the climate change world) they no longer have the ethics to conserve and their philosophy is wrong.
do you have to win at all costs? I have strong opinions and have been known to dig my heels in, but, you take this to an entirely different level, it really does come across as preaching or evangelizing and that's just turns people off.

[ak-71]

Interesting that AVB is so proud to drive less than 20 000 km a year, but it seems that, at least in 2008, average for every province was less then 18 100 km a year for light vehicles (I assume he drives a light vehicle, right?)

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...er2.cfm?attr=0

[Roughneck12]

There is so much political BS involved in "Science" these days that it has lost the moral ground.I am a human and like all humans we will adapt. Argument lost Avb.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

So to be clear, because it appears to you that others do not share the same opinion as you (I say opinion as I do not believe you are employed in the climate change world) they no longer have the ethics to conserve and their philosophy is wrong.
do you have to win at all costs? I have strong opinions and have been known to dig my heels in, but, you take this to an entirely different level, it really does come across as preaching or evangelizing and that's just turns people off.

One doesn't have to be employed in a climate world, one can be involved with an organization where climate agenda is in the culture of the organization, especially if one has to represent it's values or has to be elected on cultural values of it. Technical guys may get away with having a different opinion, PR types, probably, not.

[crazy_davey]

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

For some strange reason, Trump's seawall due to climate change (he likes building walls) and the Navy's issues with sonar were completely overlooked.

Amazing.

Perhaps the geniuses on this forum may want to explain why the Navy's real issues with sonar due to the oceans warming is not real?

Lol. So they can get more money from congress.

Simple.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by cooper

This is funny you guys hate what he says but here we are 3 pages in and counting. but i hate to say it i would rather see him wrong than you guys wrong.

That is how they sucker some in.

If you drive today. You will die. So don't drive and you are safe. Can you prove you won't die? No. Can I prove you will die? No. Therefore it is worse to die than not die so don't drive.

Then we study it.

Color of cars. Is red likely to kill you more than a white car? Either way you die.

What happens if you drive next year and die? How do your kids feel? Then don't drive.

Radar detectors kill. So don't drive.

What happens if it rains while driving? You die. Don't drive.

Geez. All studies say I die driving.

Now I can't get to Florida.

AVB. How much money have you spent on offset carbon credits? Gore has a company selling them.

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

This is also proving to be a leading cause of global warming...and is a major byproduct of the oil and gas industry.

I just learned industry sometimes sprays this waste product on roads and fields.

It has been a practice for a long time. So the government is turning a blind eye.




Rise up before it impacts our rivers and lakes!

[Lefty Bryan]

Fixed

Originally Posted by nekred

The amount of hydrogen dioxide (dihydrogen oxide H2O not HO2) on the planet is fixed and finite.....

...

[AbAngler]

People just simply have a very hard time understanding geologic time. I deal with it every day, and I still can't get people to fathom how long the earth has been around. Simply put, humans aren't even a blip on the radar screen. Period. Try to get your heads around that! If ALL humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no trace of us in say, 100000 years, which is again, not even a blip on the radar screen.

Building on that, any climate change that has happened since we've been around, is not even a blip on the radar screen. Completely insignificant. This doesn't mean we should wreck the planet (we like to live in a clean environment), but it does mean that anything we do to the planet, doesn't mean 5hit in the grand scheme of things.

Deep thoughts, brought to you by Abangler.

[dmcbride]

How come Vikings were farming in Greenland 1000 years ago?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

How come Vikings were farming in Greenland 1000 years ago?

The couldn't stand the French in Canada.

[Shepard..]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Man made climate change is insignificant compared to naturally occurring climate change. But now they choose to tax even charity organizations..That right there says it all..its not about climate change, its about the money..

[MountainTi]

Climate change dump #1? Does this mean there is gonna be a #2?

[Twist]

All tripe.

Man made global warming is crap. I don't care how many people sign onto it.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Climate change dump #1? Does this mean there is gonna be a #2?

Haha I'm waiting for it..

[avb3]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Climate change dump #1? Does this mean there is gonna be a #2?

Maaaayyyyybe.

[Bowie]

https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[From The Hip]

Originally Posted by Roughneck12

AVB is there somewhere else you can soapbox your religion?

You hit the nail on the head....."Climate Change" (used to be called Global Warming) IS the new Religion because all of the brainwashed sheeple lap up what the doomsayers have to say.

Cant say anything negative about "Climate Change" because if you do you are a "Denier".....say actual facts and post factual information and you are a filthy "Denier" also called a "Heretic" in biblical lingo.

Funny how "Global Warming" went away after a few hundred scientists who were on the payroll got exposed via thier falsified data etc and suddenly the mantra is "Climate Change" so those that get money continue to keep getting it.

Climate Change is the biggest sham in the history of mankind with perhaps the whole sham of Religion being bigger.

Follow the money and it is obvious.....sadly a lot of people are being brainwashed by the media.

The famous champion of the earth Mr.Dicaprio says society and it's people and the use of fossil fuel will destroy the planet with the rising sea levels etc....but I dont see him selling his private tropical island because of the imminent threat.


Total sham for sheeple that want to be fleeced.

FTH

[Crankbait]

first of all I'm a greenie and have been reading avb's posts with much teeth grinding. firstly, he equates the green energy business as something strictly existing for the purpose of dealing with climate change, when in truth it's merely just an energy business for the purpose of energy, the same as any energy business. he also creates a false us & them scenario over and over "fossil fuel is on the way out, wind and solar are the future", when in fact, fossil fuel, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, tidal are all the future of energy; 10% with one, 3% with another, 15% here, 40% there. The energy types don't compete just the companies exploiting the resource like any resource, fossil fuel companies own wind farms as much as solar array based companies own junior oil companies, it's just energy exploration for exploitation. Reading avb's daily dumps - for me at least - is not much different than reading misinformation on guns and hunters on CBC. No greenie that I know who has been around alt-energy for many years has ever claimed that wind or solar will meet the energy needs of the planet. It's really about co-generation anyways, one type cannot exist without the other. I'll end my teeth gnashing rant with; greenies (the older ones at least) see fossil fuel, nat gas, wind, solar etc as energy types in its infancy and fossil fuels might yet still be the greenest of them all.

But back to the us & them game and climate change, this snippet of an article is from 97, I bolded the important bit. Enjoy!!!;

Abstract

A convincing economic argument for taking action to prevent or ameliorate climate change has not developed because of both uncertainty about the degree of change and its timing. Recent costly weather-related catastrophes with consequent negative impacts on the insurance industry has made the insurance industry a potential advocate for slowing what has been identified as a causal factor in climate change: emissions of greenhouse gases. However, rising costs of claims, without a longer-term trend of such catastrophic losses, will make it difficult to present a strong case for taking costly economic action. Using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model, it is shown that increasing levels of climate variability as embedded in the anticipated variability of damage to insured assets will have an immediate economic cost that could serve to bolster the argument for more immediate action. That cost is shown to be economically justified higher insurance premiums.

Keywords
Climate change;
Insurance;
Global warming;
Options

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21800996005563

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

first of all I'm a greenie and have been reading avb's posts with much teeth grinding. firstly, he equates the green energy business as something strictly existing for the purpose of dealing with climate change, when in truth it's merely just an energy business for the purpose of energy, the same as any energy business. he also creates a false us & them scenario over and over "fossil fuel is on the way out, wind and solar are the future", when in fact, fossil fuel, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, tidal are all the future of energy; 10% with one, 3% with another, 15% here, 40% there. The energy types don't compete just the companies exploiting the resource like any resource, fossil fuel companies own wind farms as much as solar array based companies own junior oil companies, it's just energy exploration for exploitation. Reading avb's daily dumps - for me at least - is not much different than reading misinformation on guns and hunters on CBC. No greenie that I know who has been around alt-energy for many years has ever claimed that wind or solar will meet the energy needs of the planet. It's really about co-generation anyways, one type cannot exist without the other. I'll end my teeth gnashing rant with; greenies (the older ones at least) see fossil fuel, nat gas, wind, solar etc as energy types in its infancy and fossil fuels might yet still be the greenest of them all.

But back to the us & them game and climate change, this snippet of an article is from 97, I bolded the important bit. Enjoy!!!;

Abstract

A convincing economic argument for taking action to prevent or ameliorate climate change has not developed because of both uncertainty about the degree of change and its timing. Recent costly weather-related catastrophes with consequent negative impacts on the insurance industry has made the insurance industry a potential advocate for slowing what has been identified as a causal factor in climate change: emissions of greenhouse gases. However, rising costs of claims, without a longer-term trend of such catastrophic losses, will make it difficult to present a strong case for taking costly economic action. Using the Black Scholes Option Pricing Model, it is shown that increasing levels of climate variability as embedded in the anticipated variability of damage to insured assets will have an immediate economic cost that could serve to bolster the argument for more immediate action. That cost is shown to be economically justified higher insurance premiums.

Keywords
Climate change;
Insurance;
Global warming;
Options

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21800996005563

The green energy business is not quite like any other energy business in that it exists largely as a result of generous subsidy programs. (tax dollars)

And yes...the insurance companies are gleefully using the charade of climate change as an excellent excuse to raise rates. Perfect. (everyone should remember who is championing global warming when they are paying a carbon tax, and increased insurance pricing)

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by Lefty Bryan

Fixed

Double fixed, its called water! No need to use IUPAC nomenclature to sound fancy. Water in the languages I know are water, pani, agua, vodu... and H2O. Dihydrogen oxide is just redundant, and open to so many mistakes... and can be so ambiguous... (correct me if I'm wrong google wizards) it could also be called dihydrogen monoxide, etc.. guaranteed you'll **** a few professors if you were to use that nomenclatures in reports, papers, and life.
Stick to water or H2O... oh and make sure to clarify what physical state its in.
Cheers

[Crankbait]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The green energy business is not quite like any other energy business in that it exists largely as a result of generous subsidy programs. (tax dollars)

And yes...the insurance companies are gleefully using the charade of climate change as an excellent excuse to raise rates. Perfect. (everyone should remember who is championing global warming when they are paying a carbon tax, and increased insurance pricing)

Not all alt-energy companies go for the free cash hand outs. but like avb's misinformed bandwagon post, you keep the us & them going steady too. innovation funding and/or investment happens within all energy business, none are static enterprise.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Bowie

https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The best I've ever seen Ted Cruz. It's a good watch.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

Not all alt-energy companies go for the free cash hand outs. but like avb's misinformed bandwagon post, you keep the us & them going steady too. innovation funding and/or investment happens within all energy business, none are static enterprise.

I don't know how far-reaching the handouts are, but this is a situation in Lethbridge. A small solar panel to power a sign (maybe 5 fluorescent tubes) was priced at $3500 supply and install. They obviously didn't get the job. With prices like that I don't think the government was involved.

[JustMe]

One would have to be awful naive to not believe and admit climate change is real. The question that a lot can't answer, is it a natural phenomenon or caused by man?

From today's Journal:

Daphne Bramham: Facing up to the facts of climate change

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...463/story.html

[hal53]

Originally Posted by JustMe

One would have to be awful naive to not believe and admit climate change is real. The question that a lot can't answer, is it a natural phenomenon or caused by man?

From today's Journal:

Daphne Bramham: Facing up to the facts of climate change

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opini...463/story.html

What caused the last ice age to recede?

[JustMe]

Without a doubt, better scientist than either you or I have been debating this for years. I doubt either of us can add much to those debates..... However as noted in my original post, the debate can remain, natural or man caused?

Reading for the bored:

Changes in Earth's atmosphere

There is considerable evidence that over the very recent period of the last 100–1000 years, the sharp increases in human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, has caused the parallel sharp and accelerating increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases which trap the sun's heat. The consensus theory of the scientific community is that the resulting greenhouse effect is a principal cause of the increase in global warming which has occurred over the same period, and a chief contributor to the accelerated melting of the remaining glaciers and polar ice. A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[44]

There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of weathering). Greenhouse gas levels may also have been affected by other factors which have been proposed as causes of ice ages, such as the movement of continents and volcanism.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The hypothesis also warns of future Snowball Earths.

In 2009, further evidence was provided that changes in solar insolation provide the initial trigger for the earth to warm after an Ice Age, with secondary factors like increases in greenhouse gases accounting for the magnitude of the change.[45]

William Ruddiman has proposed the early anthropocene hypothesis, according to which the anthropocene era, as some people call the most recent period in the earth's history when the activities of the human species first began to have a significant global impact on the earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the 18th century with the advent of the Industrial Era, but dates back to 8,000 years ago, due to intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped following the periodic pattern of the Milankovitch cycles. In his overdue-glaciation hypothesis Ruddiman states that an incipient glacial would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled glacial was forestalled by the activities of early farmers.[46]

At a meeting of the American Geophysical Union (December 17, 2008), scientists detailed evidence in support of the controversial idea that the introduction of large-scale rice agriculture in Asia, coupled with extensive deforestation in Europe began to alter world climate by pumping significant amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over the last 1,000 years. In turn, a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming, possibly forestalling the onset of a new glacial age.[47]

Originally Posted by hal53

What caused the last ice age to recede?