Can we really Save the Planet

[Heeb]

9 hours ago, Marvin Boggs said:

Good grief I can't believe so many of you guys have fallen for this climate change bullsh*t.  Honestly its embarrassing.  Wake up, people.   

Let’s see what rocket scientists have to say about climate change, not some dumb politician or paid oil company hack.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Marvin Boggs]

Your first clue that they don't know what they are talking about should have been the big 'whoopsie' 40 years ago when all of a sudden the global cooling alarmism turned into global warming alarmism.  Your second clue should have been within the last 20 years, when they realized their skewed 'warming' numbers weren't really lining up with the more recent cooling trend, and changed the mantra to 'climate change'.  IN other words, we don't really know what's happening folks, but it must be something bad, and it must be because of humans.  Your third clue should have been ice age correlation to solar activity.  Your fourth clue should have been that none of the alarmist predictions have come true.  Not the sea level rise, not the ozone hole, not the ice caps.  In fact, climate modeling is one of THE most complex systems to understand and therefore attempt to model or predict.  If the PHD 'consensus' economists and math experts cannot even accurately model the global economy, what makes us think a scientific model could ever use the intricacies of the global environment to predict an outcome?  Your FIFTH clue should have been that these 'consensus' scientists seem to agree at all, which is itself a statistical myth.  Scientific method should be a pursuit of empirical data, when in reality one needs to look at the funding and endorsements of those promoting this load of bollocks.  Your SIXTH clue should have been the so-called experts own admission, that even if ALL the countries abided by the 2016 Paris accord, the total human impact net difference by the end of the century would be less than 1 degree Celsius.  At what total cost of untold Trillions, and losses of human liberty?

Before automatically imbibing whatever the latest fake news, junk science, or pseudo-babble that the mainstream media or even NASA want you to believe, at least understand the bigger picture of what it is you think you know about the climate.  Here is a good start:  https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming   This is far from a settled topic, folks.  I have been following it myself for 30 years.  I have to remind myself often that the world is full of people who don't question anything.  

Use the brain that God gave you.  By all means, lets do our part to keep the planet that we were given, but not worship the creation over the Creator.  I'm all for improvements in efficiency, reduction in pollution, etc.  But I am not about to hand over my life willingly to a UN world agenda that wants to use the climate as an excuse to control everything we do.  

 

[Mike J]

8 hours ago, Marvin Boggs said:

Your fourth clue should have been that none of the alarmist predictions have come true.  Not the sea level rise, not the ozone hole, not the ice caps.

I did read the article you posted.  I also took note of the extremely strong conservative bias in the articles that are published by the site.  I realize that what I have posted will not change your mind, just as what you have posted will not change mine.  Anyone is capable of finding "facts" on the internet that will support their beliefs no matter how extreme or rediculous those beliefs might be.   Just consider all the published articles that say the earth is flat and there is no gravity.  However there is one set of numbers that deserves careful consideration and that is 97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to global warming and climate change.   You do have a right to your opinion, but scolding the rest of us for "automatically imbibing whatever the latest fake news, junk science, or pseudo-babble" is an insulting to our intelligence as well as  yours.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA6IHwBRCJARIsALNjViU2lZlGxulMXQp8jmpQLNHieaGHdha1-GH96zCql7GaWfhoZIct5wcaAubBEALw_wcB

 

The sea level has risen and continues to rise.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

<snip>

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.Oct 9, 2019

<end snip)

 

The ozone hole has stabilized and started to shrink since fluorocarbons were banned by most countries.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/2019-ozone-hole-is-smallest-ever-recorded

<snip>

Oct 21, 2019 - Scientists expect the ozone hole to shrink back to the size it was in 1980 by approximately 2070, as ozone-depleting chemicals banned by the Montreal Protocol but still in the atmosphere continue to decline. There is no identified connection between these weather patterns and climate change.

<end snip>

Ice caps are shrinking at an all time historical rate.

http://www.softschools.com/facts/environmental_science/polar_ice_caps_facts/2894/

<snip>

NASA has estimated that the polar ice caps are melting 9% every ten years, which is an extremely alarming rate. If the temperature on earth continues to rise at its current rate the Arctic will have no ice by 2040. The Arctic ice cap has decreased since the 1960s by as much as 40%.

<end snip>

[GeoffH]

8 hours ago, Marvin Boggs said:

Not the sea level rise, not the ozone hole, not the ice caps.

Sea level has risen...

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

 

The Ozone hole is not directly related to atmospheric climate change, only to UV exposure levels and it is reducing because countries banded together to phase out refrigerants that damage Ozone, primarily R22 but also other.  You're quoting a fact that doesn't support your point.

https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/rac/consumers

 

The ice caps ARE melting at a faster rate than has ever been seen in historical times.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

[Heeb]

10 hours ago, Marvin Boggs said:

Before automatically imbibing whatever the latest fake news, junk science, or pseudo-babble that the mainstream media or even NASA want you to believe

So NASA is is putting out junk science now?

[Heeb]

I believe in climate change and man's contribution to it, that being said I don't think we can "Save the Planet" there's too many people and it's too late to reverse it, we don't have the will, time or tools to do it at this point. Windmills and solar panels can't support our power grids even with battery backups, because we gave up on nuclear fission except for a few countries we're still dependent on coal. Up until 6 months ago when I retired and moved to the Philippines I was a grid operator in the pacific northwest, I know first hand how often wind generation is stagnant, especially when it's needed most during hot summer days. We're shutting down coal plants without anything significant to replace the reliable energy that they supply. Even hydro-generation which was the backbone of our system, we were seeing low snow pack events in the cascades even in British Columbia for several years in a row, which is bad for Californians that are reliant on PNW power especially in the summer. The left and the right need to come together to solve the problem, we need to develop safe nuclear options like France or nuclear fusion if possible and augment it with solar and wind but it ain't gonna happen. I don't have any kids so I don't really have a big stake in the game, at 58 I can't live without my creature comforts, I run the A/C on in the bedroom at night, get yours while you still can I say, in some ways I feel fortunate to be on the downside.

 

[Tommy T.]

I worked for NOAA on a ship for a spell. I can attest that the science studied there was honest and productive. When NOAA speaks, people should listen. I think a lot of NASA and NOAA scientists have more background, learning and expertise than me or most others on the forum - so I tend to trust a lot of what they say. They say that this planet is in trouble...

What is perhaps most alarming to me is the CO2 level in the atmosphere. This is scientifically factually measured. It is a fact that this level has climbed a lot since the advent of the industrial revolution. What is not completely factual is what, exactly, this means for the planet...but my gut tells me it cannot be good. Take a look at this website, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

Today's children and their children will see what happens. And right now, they have no say, no input into today's culture and industry right - they're just kids? Instead, we should follow what politicians and fossil fuel industrialists suggest, that this is all a hoax and "fake" science, "fake" news?

Michael Crighton wrote a book several years ago called "State of Fear." It was a sort of historical novel... In it he quoted a number of scientists and experts of that time (2004) stating that the global warming scenario was a hoax. I wonder sometimes if some of the doubters in politics and elsewhere read that book (or watched the movie) for their "education?" At the time I read it, I was convinced he was right and that it all was just made up science. I changed my mind a few years later as I watched and learned about the melting ice caps, melting glaciers, destruction of tropical forests in the Amazon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines. Think about this... can any of these activities actually be beneficial for our home?

Sorry... that approached being a rant, so I will stop there. Just more of my thoughts and opinions for your consideration.

[canadamale]

in my humble opinion is climate change happening, yes, has the climate always been changing, yes. In the 1970's I was told we were running out of oil and we were  entering a minor ice age. In the 2000's I am told we have oil enough for another 100 yrs. and have global warming. The government is having me pay a tax on carbon. How they price the carbon and how they decide how much to tax me I do bot know. How the carbon tax will have me use less carbon I also do not know. I suppose the government thinks if they take more of my money I will have less to spend on Carbon producing products. I use natural gas to heat my home, I use coal powered electicity to power my home. I use gasoline in my truck. Everything I buy is somehow delivered or produced using fossil fuels. Is it the oil, gas, coal industry in Canada causing the problem? Recently we had a young girl come over from Europe and tell us how bad we are. Yet Germany and Russia just doubled there natural gas pipeline capability. The oil and gas industry I the US is booming, companies from Canada are leaving for the US in droves. India and China are building coal powered power plants. The climate will change, the weather will change, it is what it is. Until the major powers, US, Russia, China, India, Europe decide to come together to change nothing will change. I do not see it happening in my lifetime. Only more climate fearmongering and more taxes for me. [ I may be doomed for this but I for one enjoy the warmer winters here. Less -40 weather is a plus for me.]

Edited December 24, 2019 by canadamale

[Heeb]

I used to have a salt water aquarium when I was station in the Philippines, it was fun to catch my own fish, many time I saw local Filipinos squirting tubes of cyanide in the water to catch them and sell to dealers, of course they would die in about six months because of the harm it caused. Anyway, I got complacent and didn't clean the filters and check the PH levels, one day I woke up and all the fish were dead, once the balance was gone it was a cataclysmic event. What I fear most is upsetting that balance in our oceans because our lives on land depend on it, our oxygen and food source, it could happen so fast and it won't be just the inconvenience of dealing with storms, hot weather and rising sea levels. The ocean is absorbing most of the Co2 that we are producing and it causes the acidity to rise and if we reach the point where it's not habitable to marine life we are screwed.

[Marvin Boggs]

On 12/24/2019 at 6:44 AM, Mike J said:

I did read the article you posted.  I also took note of the extremely strong conservative bias in the articles that are published by the site.  I realize that what I have posted will not change your mind, just as what you have posted will not change mine.  Anyone is capable of finding "facts" on the internet that will support their beliefs no matter how extreme or rediculous those beliefs might be.   Just consider all the published articles that say the earth is flat and there is no gravity.  However there is one set of numbers that deserves careful consideration and that is 97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to global warming and climate change.   You do have a right to your opinion, but scolding the rest of us for "automatically imbibing whatever the latest fake news, junk science, or pseudo-babble" is an insulting to our intelligence as well as  yours.

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/how-we-know-global-warming-is-real/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA6IHwBRCJARIsALNjViU2lZlGxulMXQp8jmpQLNHieaGHdha1-GH96zCql7GaWfhoZIct5wcaAubBEALw_wcB

 

The sea level has risen and continues to rise.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

<snip>

Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.Oct 9, 2019

<end snip)

 

The ozone hole has stabilized and started to shrink since fluorocarbons were banned by most countries.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/2019-ozone-hole-is-smallest-ever-recorded

<snip>

Oct 21, 2019 - Scientists expect the ozone hole to shrink back to the size it was in 1980 by approximately 2070, as ozone-depleting chemicals banned by the Montreal Protocol but still in the atmosphere continue to decline. There is no identified connection between these weather patterns and climate change.

<end snip>

Ice caps are shrinking at an all time historical rate.

http://www.softschools.com/facts/environmental_science/polar_ice_caps_facts/2894/

<snip>

NASA has estimated that the polar ice caps are melting 9% every ten years, which is an extremely alarming rate. If the temperature on earth continues to rise at its current rate the Arctic will have no ice by 2040. The Arctic ice cap has decreased since the 1960s by as much as 40%.

<end snip>

Edit: accidentally hit the 'Report' button at the top instead of the 'Quote' button at the bottom.  

 

Lets not misrepresent what I said.  By asserting that "anyone is capable of finding 'facts' on the internet", you are asserting that the strong case for climate change skepticism is somehow nullified since "the experts agree."  But the very claim you mention -- 97% -- is the most mis-reported and misunderstood 'fact' in this entire debate.  I notice you were careful in your wording.  That number is usually represented as "97% of scientists blame humans for global warming."  How it should be represented is "Of scientists included in the study, 97% agreed that humans have some impact on global warming."  I mean there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...I think that is how the saying goes.  Note that in some studies only 1/3 of papers reviewed even factored humans as a cause.  Now ask yourself how many of that number would say that humans contribute MOST of the problem?  Like a bell curve 20% distribution?  As I already stated, even if ALL the Paris Accord protocols were followed (and met), the net reduction in temperature by the end of the century is unsatisfyingly miniscule.  Shall we hand over our sovereignty and worship at the climate altar, then?  President was smart to see that as the farce it was, the first president to do so I believe.  Bravo.  

The Ozone hole.  That's a funny title on the article you linked, because it goes on to say that the ozone hole fluctuates according to annual weather patterns.  Your summary "the ozone hole has stabilized and started to shrink since CFC's were banned" leaves out a few very important points.  After the alarmist scare of the '80s that we would all get cancer if we didn't take action NOW, it was discovered that yes, the hole grows and shrinks seasonally.  Lucky us, all that panic they instilled has 'reversed' the trend that they couldn't even measure until 1982, and guess what?  Wow its the smallest ever recorded, and if we just keep up the hard work it will be back to 'normal' by 2050!  Circular science at its best.  Where to even begin exploring the number of 'holes' in this theory? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ozone-hole-was-super-scary-what-happened-it-180957775/

Ice Caps.  NASA, ok I think their data goes back to 1979, so I'm not sure what conclusion we would draw.  Sorry but isn't softschools.com a Common Core curriculum?  I just thought it a strange source to quote, as if school courses are settled fact.  Don't want to get off on a tangent, but Common Core, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030....these are things everyone needs to absorb and understand.  Back to Ice Caps.  There would seem to be just as many studies showing an increase rather than a decrease, depending on how, where, and when the measurements are recorded.  I will remind everyone here just how astonishingly, embarrassingly wrong the alarmists have been, predicting Antarctica would be 'ice free' in the summers by now.  As I asserted before, and will repeat: global weather is vastly complex, far more so than the computing power and scientific knowledge base needed to predict it.  Every time they predict 'snowless winters' or polar bears losing their habitat....I hate to say they look foolish, but what else can we call it?  Though you dismissed the previous article I linked as too conservative, please recall some of the salient points such as cyclical warming and cooling recorded during various decades in the early 1900s, at a time when we had far fewer people, cars, and factories.  My point being, how do we separate cyclical trends from 'alarming' trends with data that is comparatively recent?  If the ice caps ARE gradually warming, it is certainly far far slower than they predicted.  I don't even know why we collectively assume that reduction in ice caps would be a bad thing...hasn't humanity adapted to these changes before?  

Sea Levels.  Last time I looked up the NOAA data for myself, I think they have measurements back more than 100 years.  There are too many recording methods to get good apples to apples comparisons, but I recall averaging some data there to discover around 8-10 inches rise over a hundred year period.  Feel free to correct me if that number is off base, but my Lord, is that a number to be alarmed by?  Where are the "Climate refugees" predicted just 15 years ago?  Don't we remember how the Marshall islands were all going to be submerged?  I thought New York City was going to be inundated by high tides, and half the population living in coastal areas would become homeless.  This is how the alarmist predictions go, and why it ought to be complete non-starter debate topic. I think if my beachfront estate lost a foot of elevation from rising water (is that about 10 feet of sand?) I'd find a way to counter it before the house fell in the ocean, or should I say, let my grandkids figure it out.  So, yep, global sea level rise at 1/8" per year is a real panic situation folks.

I won't even get into the atmospheric and ocean data readings which have been knowingly skewed by those scientists attempting to maintain their narrative.  You may recall a little thing called the ClimateGate scandal.  Or just recently the controversy surrounding Michael Mann's infamous 'hockey stick graph' has blown up again, in court this time.  These critical readings and charts often become centerpieces of global policies....that is why it ought to concern us all when they misrepresent facts for their own agendas.  If my outburst sounded like scolding, its a reaction I have to people when they cannot open their eyes and absorb what is happening around them.  I remember a time long ago, when I could just passively accept whatever the news, or NOAA, or NASA, or Colin Powell, etc. had to say on any given topic.  Sometimes I miss those days.

Human Contribution.  Based on every hoax that has come and gone surrounding climate hysteria, I'm wagering against myself that the CO2 emissions debate will follow a similar course.  When science finally agrees on the mechanisms, and the contributions, and some baseline of data that is meaningful, I predict we will look back and say "Sh*t that was just a load of hot air."  Pun intended.  And yet, even though all of that is barely even understood, they will solemnly swear to us that we need to reduce our Co2 emissions by X amount before Y date, or it will be the end of us all.  If we just would drive a Tesla, and have another cash-for-clunkers buyback program, and some UN-approved carbon credits and carbon taxes, all will be well.  Oh yes, and an overseeing body located somewhere neutral like maybe Brussels.  By then we won't have enough wits about us to question anything, because of Common Core educational curricula.  Do we see a pattern yet?  

Ima stop beating a dead horse now.  The OP topic was "Can we really save the planet?"  My answer is, we can do our part, but not so much.  Tectonic forces, Magnetic forces, Tidal forces, Solar forces, Volcanic activity, these things are staggering and far outweigh what Man can impact.