Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
Splatter,
that is how you correctly spell it by the way...
The Ironic part is while writing here, i have taken time away from editing a book, which i am paid well for by a repeat customer.
hmmmm
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Splater = Splat later (not now)
EdB, before to jumping to more unfounded assumptions, in the future you may want to ask why it "appears" to be misspelled.
It's a Proper name that I created to make it stand out from the common word, and in fact it basically means "don't splatter".
I'm sure many others didn't get it either, but you are the first one to outright tell me how I "should" have spelled it, as if that would help your case that climate change is a hoax.
If you had read many of my posts, you might have noticed, as such an amazing editor, that misspelling such a simple word would seem incongruent.
any more silly irrelevancies?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I think EdBannister maybe got some of his "facts" wrong...
Stanford got 250 million in grant money to research global warming, everyone there has an obligation to not screw it up for the rest, or would you disagree with that?
Stanford recently received $12M to study a range of environmental issues:
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/07/13/stanford-grant-programs-offer-environmental-solutions/
the GAO reported out on total USG funding for climate change:
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
The estimated total number of climate scientists in the world is of order 7,000 give or take a 1,000 and that doesn't include graduate students, who would be authors on papers, also, as well as other scientists who are not trained as climate scientists but contribute to the papers (e.g. data analysis, statistical analysis, instrumentation, etc).
As for Ehrlich's predictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
many didn't happen, not sure that that is an example of why scientific predictions should not be used to assess future risk. But certainly, the number of people in the world have greatly increased in my and EdBannister's lifetimes, in 1955 there were 2.8 billion people total, now, 2015, about 7.3 billion a factor of 2.6. In North America it went from 187 million to 358 million a factor of 2. Had the annual growth rate not maxed out around 1970, and stayed flat at 2%/year the world population would be 9.6 billion people, had that annual growth continued to increase with the trend from 1950 to 1970, the world population would be 13.1 billion people.
What is the maximum human population that the Earth can support?
As someone suggested, Ehrlich could be credited as alerting people to the problem of population growth, and that changed as a result.
However, certainly human activities have greatly expanded in the 20th century, with the increasing population, and that has had an effect on the climate.
Ehrlich had many critics, and didn't get everything right... but the basic question, of the carrying capacity of the Earth, is an important one... increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is one such effect.
Watching YouTube videos, of dubious origins, is not a way to learn about climate change. The information is available from a huge number of sources and at varying levels of depth. Start learning about it from the scientists who have been doing it... and criticize it based on science, not on your opinion or worse, the opinion of others.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The theory in question is not whether or not humans are responsible for an impact on climate, rather the gloom and doom forecasts of all the chicken littles.
how would you address the risk posed by the theory prediction, that is not in question, that continuing to increase CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to warm the atmosphere, and that warming could cause great disruption?
the theory is our best way of predicting the future, and the various scenarios are not very optimistic about people to continuing the way of life they have been leading.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
ed Hartouni, reread who said hundreds of thousands of climate scientists, it was not my error.
Stanford does have 250 million in grants over the next ten years, and has received the first 100 million.
The growth in population happened, what did not happen was the predicted mass on mass starvation, we, in 1972, were all told we were going to die of starvation by 2015.. no way to feed all those people.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
yes SPLATER
one more...
Ed Hartouni takes responsibility for what he says by using his name.. I respect that, he is a good man... we think differently but he is a good human. and, Ed uses issues, and data, also a great way to illustrate your point.
Mr. Hartouni also does not bring up iQ... or have the need to..
i get you have no respect for me, so maybe take a lesson from the other Ed.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yeah, Ed is a great guy and occaisionally truthful too. Like when he stated " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural climate variability".
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Ed H has been making his clear, patient, and calm case for a decade now; has it made any difference? The deniers and trolls like RickS have stopped most progress in our society. Climate change is going to have large negative impacts and it can be difficult to respect those who want to let that happen.
I have tried to bring the science case to the discussion, and I think that has made a difference, but it isn't just me, many scientists have patiently brought the case, and the undeniable evidence of a very different climate then one we grew up with is all around to see.
Right now many people who didn't previously accept the scientific consensus do, and the discussion turns to what, if anything should be done about it. Since this action needs to be global the discussion includes everyone. It's very possible that people decide to just do nothing, but I think that isn't going to happen, and I don't think that any country can go their own course. The atmosphere is everywhere.
There won't be any silver bullet, no single technology solution, no unexpected natural fix, no supernatural intervention. But whatever the decision is, and whenever it is made, it will be one made by the entire global community. The issues are complex and no single group of people of whatever label has the entire answer.
Doing nothing is not an option as the changes that are predicted by our best scientific models have the temperatures rising into a range for which our current world is not adapted to, and so quickly that it is difficult to know if it can adapt, it's all uncharted territory in Earth history.
The assessment of risk based on our best science spans a huge range from none to total calamity, and is somewhere in between, but not entirely knowable. It would seem prudent, that knowing the cause of the change we wouldn't do something about it, shading our response, perhaps, towards avoiding the worst outcomes, and adapting the policy as we see the climate's response.
Those changes will take a very long time to happen.
Rick likes to use that quote, but put in the context of the larger discussion it was extracted from, the signal of human activity in the 20th century didn't become overwhelming until the 1970's, but it is certainly more than overwhelming now. It isn't something the fluctuates, but builds up over time. And it won't quickly disappear.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"Watching YouTube videos, of dubious origins, is not a way to learn about climate change. The information is available from a huge number of sources and at varying levels of depth. Start learning about it from the scientists who have been doing it... and criticize it based on science, not on your opinion or worse, the opinion of others."
Easterbrook provided a prediction in 2008 at this webpage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
I've overplotted this with the actual measurements here:
the blue line is the 5 year mean from the latest NASA temperature index:
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/647_Global_Temperature_Data_File.txt
which agrees with the red line taken from Fig. 5 of Easterbrook's paper (Easterbrook didn't say where or what the data was he plotted).
[The disagreement before 1940 has to do with an adjustment in the ocean temperatures that has been made since that paper.]
The green and purple lines are Easterbrook's predictions for two different scenarios. Neither seem to be tracking the actual anomaly in blue.
It would seem his scenarios are incorrect.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
Wait
What, you all on topic? Good
Take a rest !
I'm sure I drift and so do so with the little free will I've left
To The Brace along the edge of a stair**
People Are Dying of Starvation. And lack of water all around the planet
Even here, in The king dumb of tRmpu, the waters of many homes are poisoned by the systems.
Speaking of systems, the very one responsible for a balanced planet has
been corrupted.
The hard won balance that we as a country eventually faught for
Starting 75 Y'Rs ago to day when our president let our antiquated navy get attacked.....
in this never was a great nation just a facade, we have the tragedies All crowded together.
As if it were a side-show, when it is a mirror of the main act.
I've omitted all the pornography but turned up the *FANCY GARBELBASE* to way past a safe volume
*What are you all? *
*Deaf?*
Vote for an Oligarch get an Oligarchy
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-open-up-arctic-drilling-2016-11
DRILL BABY DRILL !!
Trump to interview ExxonMobil CEO for secretary of state
Posted: Dec 06, 2016 3:03 PM EST
Updated: Dec 06, 2016 3:03 PM EST
By CNNMoney
NEW YORK -
The face of Big Oil could become America's top diplomat.
President-elect Donald Trump is interviewing ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson on Tuesday to consider him for the secretary of state position, according to one Trump aide.
Tillerson is considered a long shot for the most prestigious Cabinet role, but the Trump aide told CNN that the president-elect is intrigued by the oil man's view of the world.
Other leading contenders for secretary of state include Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and David Petraeus.
Tillerson would be the latest multimillionaire to join Trump's cabinet and he could prove to be a controversial pick. Not only does Tillerson run the world's most valuable oil company at a time of serious concern about climate change, but the Exxon CEO also has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In 2011, Exxon inked a deal with Russian oil giant Rosneft to provide access to lucrative oil resources in the Arctic. The agreement could be a point of contention if Tillerson is appointed, especially since Democrats and national security experts have accused the Trump camp of cozying up to Russia.
The Russian government is Rosneft's largest shareholder, and Putin attended the Exxon signing ceremony. In 2013, Putin awarded Tillerson the country's Order of Friendship.
Under Tillerson, Exxon is also grappling with legal scrutiny.
Last year, the New York Attorney General launched an investigation into whether Exxon withheld information about the risks of climate change. Both the SEC and NY AG are also probing Exxon's accounting methods, focusing on whether the company should have lowered the value of its oil and gas resources given the crash in energy prices.
Tillerson, 64, has served as the head of the Exxon oil empire since 2006. He will reach the company's mandatory retirement age of 65 in March and is expected to retire then.
Through the end of 2015, Tillerson has made more than $240 million as CEO, according to an analysis from board and executive data provider Equilar. That total includes his base salary, bonuses, stock awards and other compensation over 10 years.
Trump has made no secret of his desire to be friendly with the oil industry. The president-elect wants to unleash the country's natural resources by rolling back drilling regulations and drilling on federal lands.
"America's incredible energy potential remains untapped," Trump said in a May speech, adding that the problem is "totally self-inflected."
Trump, who ran for president as a populist outsider who promised to "drain the swamp" in Washington, has so far nominated other ultra-wealthy people for his cabinet.
Among the richest nominees so far are billionaires Wilbur Ross for secretary of commerce and Betsy DeVos for secretary of education.
Trump's pick for deputy secretary of commerce, Todd Ricketts, is the son of a billionaire and co-owns the Chicago Cubs. His would-be Treasury secretary is former Goldman Sachs banker and Hollywood bankroller Steven Mnuchin. Chief strategist Steve Bannon also worked as a Goldman Sachs banker before serving as chairman of Breitbart News.
Whether he goes to the Trump administration or not, ExxonMobil is poised to lose Tillerson at a critical time.
Feeling the effects of low oil prices, Exxon is currently facing a long slump. Its U.S. pumping business lost $477 million last quarter for its seventh consecutive quarter in the red.
Exxon has signaled that Tillerson's heir apparent is Darren Woods. The company promoted Woods, who leads Exxon's massive network of oil refineries and fuel terminals, to the position of president a year ago.
A full cut and paste from Montana
http://www.kxlf.com/story/33943757/trump-to-interview-exxonmobil-ceo-for-secretary-of-state
Given the predictions, and the current conditions. . .
A softening of the perma-frost over the last decade
we and the Russians will Drill in the Arctic Wilderness
The Rape of The Planet , our Only Home
Will now ramp up to a blistering speed.
The way the pendulum swings, bad actors act swiftly,
sure to take as much as they can all at once.
Leave No Trace will take on a differnt meaning
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
You might ask yourself, since the best funded people who write about climate are the ALEC and Koch funded deniers, why can't they come up with anything that is not easily refuted silliness?
In fact ALEC and Koch would gladly pay billions of dollars if someone could refute climate change science. But it can't be done.
So instead they invest their money in faux news shlepticism.
Mmmm. Kool Aid.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Right now many people who didn't previously accept the scientific consensus do, and the discussion turns to what, if anything should be done about it. Since this action needs to be global the discussion includes everyone. It's very possible that people decide to just do nothing, but I think that isn't going to happen, and I don't think that any country can go their own course. The atmosphere is everywhere.
I for one appreciate your input here.
If you had to give a general basic plan to counter AGW in the next fifty yearsfor science dumb people like myself what would it be? Broad brush strokes.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Do you think China, Russia and India would agree to those measures?
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
#theGarblebase...
What's that mean? Something mean on twitter?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
No... just a hashtag of love for our resident Gnome....
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
Ca fined water wasters- did the rich care? Carbon taxes only hurt the poor. You have to reduce the US population if you want to reduce our contribution to climate change.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
1) As it stands now in the USA,
the cost of petro fuel for cars & trucks is so low that there is no significant incentive to conserve or buy an efficient vehicle.
This applies to poor as well as rich. Driving a gas hog is not a right, and there is no good reason to subsidize inefficiency for anyone.
Everyone should pay the gradually increased pollution tax (revenue neutral).
No one should be exempt.
Then use the money to reduce overall taxes such as income.
Poor people who don't drive should not subsidize poor people who do.
2) The USA is capitalist. That is not going to change just because we start attempting effective policies to reduce GHGs. Rich people consume more than poor people. That is not hypocritical in our system. What counts is the overall GHG emissions, not a quota per person. Why would we expect a billionaire to use the same amount as a minimum wage worker? Doing so would actually be the hypocritical policy in a capitalist state. Do we expect the rich to consume equal:
land, wood, restaurants, hotels, sushi, lobster, massages, entertainment, cosmetic surgery, cable tv, jewelry, clothing, gear, houses, wine, limos, furs, travel, horseriding, truffles ?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!