Climate change

[Sol Tee Nutz]

^^^^ Up 2... Yes this is not proven yet as the Antarctic ice increase was recently found.
At the bottom of the article.

“Partial explanations have been offered, but we don’t have the complete picture,” said Ted Scambos, a scientist at NSIDC DAAC. “This may just be a case of ‘we don’t know yet.’”

Give it time, we have lots of it. Your mind is made up though.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

^^^^ You quote the UN, and I was about to give you some credit for your efforts.

And your answer in post 257. Your part 1 answer did it fully answer the question , you posted man caused climate change, it is false.
For the second part, the iceages have have been deteriorating over time, is it not possible that it is slowing to a point in the future there will be no iceage? As I pointed out, the last iceage still had semi tropical vegetation at the equator, never happened before.
I do agree that man ( should I have to say people ) does have a small part of it, we need to do this to exist. I do not believe in a doomsday theory as too many have come and gone and to believe this one is wrong. There is no 100% proof that by shutting down fossil fuels will alter climate change, until there is I will continue being a sceptic.
Back in the mid 60's when I was a kid during Halloween I do remember it being warm out all the time, we were running around getting candy in costumes ( Why do people not give candy anymore? ) in warm weather, year after year. Now you can be guaranteed a snowfall or cold weather.
I am more concerned that my kids will be able to afford to live in Canada comfortably than if they will be affected by climate change, the way things are going with our government affordability will be the main issue, we can change that by voting out the left in Canada, we can not change the climate in Canada though.

 

[Bred Sob]

I don't hold myself out as an expert in climate change.

False modesty.

What is clear is that we have to get Trump and the Republicans out of power asap

Obviously you are a world-class expert.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

To GMA, you say we need to get rid of Trump, why? The US economy is booming and according to your peers here that should be reason enough to keep a person in power as they think Trudeau deserves to rule again as they like how the economy is going.

 

[jalimon]

Do not compare Trudeau with Trump! Trudeau has the economy booming along with green initiatives and immigration. Today it was announced that Quebec will be missing between 14 and 20 thousand construction workers before 2021... To keep the growth we need the workers...

And ho no need to get rid of Trump. He is doing on path to get that goal on his own haha

 

[minutemenX]

@GMA, I definitely agree with the consensus that climate change is being caused be humans. ..Sound waves bouncing through the atmosphere is an issue most people just don’t consider. The HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) project was designed by the US military for weather warfare & uses high frequency sound waves to alter atmospheric pressure. I don’t believe taxes will ever resolve these issues though, only conscious change by humanity as a whole will make a difference.

]

it is a bold statement from person who does not understand the difference between sound and electromagnetic waves. You have a soup of not connected scientific fragments in your head. Physics is a beautiful and very logical structure that needs to be learned from the bottom up in school. It is hard work and can't be substituted by the random use of terminology without any understanding of the substance. As for the HAARP project, there is no mistery, just read WIKI, it has nothing to do with the climate manipulation.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

^^^^ Up 2. Jaliman, I have asked this question to Doc a few times and he could not answer. What has Trudeau done to assist the Canadian economy.
Just to add, if it was a Conservative and did the same things Trudeau had done the media would have been all over it ten fold and the left called to have him kicked out of power.

 

[minutemenX]

@minutemenX, my understanding is that em waves are generated by electric charge & sound waves from a mechanical charge. If there’s an electric charge within every atom, I would think any mechanical wave still has an electric charge, even if it’s weaker. Feel free to educate while you criticize.

Not everyone would agree that HAARP has nothing to do with climate manipulation.

Sound waves in a gas are week pressure waves and EM waves are oscillations of EM field propagating in space or media. They are unrelated and different phenomena. The vibration of the string in gas produces sound wave but not EM wave and the AC current in the conductor (antenna) can generate EM wave but not the sound wave. However, oscillations of the piezoelectric crystal can generate both Sounds complicated? Go back to school. I’m paid to teach, so this is not the place. I am here to discuss recreational sex and related meters. Let’s steer this discussion on climate change towards the major topic of this forum. In Europe they calculate CO2 footprint from all types of activities (often printed on receipts and tickets) So, guys and gals what is environmental footprint of our activity and how we can reduce it? Is it substantial? We should consider showering, driving to meetings and consumption of different foods and beverages. Also using disposable material (condoms, wipes etc.) increases waste generation. What else? Any ideas for “green” encounter? Are there any ladies giving discount to environmentally bent guys? They are probably smelly and cheap but hey! it is good for the environment!ainkiller::

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

just a matter of time...

Yes you did show evidence of your fears, none of it proves that we can change it now, none of it proves how much time till the doom happens. Not being stubborn, waiting for real proof that doom will happen in the next few centuries and how do we stop fossil fuel usage now to please the students and will that 100% stop climate change. Also, until China and India plus a few others get onboarding why should Canada be burdened with the extreme cost when it will make zero difference. It would be like having a room with 10,000 smokers and 1 person quits and the expected outcome is better air quality.

Also to point out

What is this awful reality we are supposed to be trying to escape?

If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.

Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.

 

[hungry101]

If CO2 was a genuine issue, all we would need to do to dramatically cut CO2 emissions is copy the 1970s French nuclear programme. France generates over 70% of their electricity from nuclear. Sweden generates 35-40%. Sweden and France are living proof that going nuclear is affordable, safe and effective; the rest of the world could easily do the same.

Why is the prospect of going nuclear supposed to be so traumatic? I’m a fan of nuclear power. If I thought there was the slightest chance CO2 was a problem, I would be campaigning hard for more nuclear power.

I am a big fan of nuclear power.

If you get into an argument with a liberal in NA about nuclear you can disarm them with this fact: The French generate derive 92% of their electricity from nuclear power and they hate us!

 

[Valcazar]

The bias against nuclear power in North America is a real problem. There are legitimate concerns about nuclear waste storage, but the fears mostly seem centered around three Mile Island and Chernobyl melt downs.

HAARP.
We've really gone off the deep end here.

GMA, you need to stop trying to convince STN with facts. He has made his position very clear, he does not want to be inconvenienced and so anything less than absolute 100% certainty means he doesn't have to do anything. (100% certainty also won't convince him, because he is a "in the long term we will all be dead" guy. I mean, why get termites out of your house if in 1000 years it is likely to collapse due an earthquake at some point?)

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

^^^^ Unlike you I was able to spawn and have kids so your comment about me not caring about the future is moot. As for not doing anything, I recycle, I walk to places if I can, I do not allow my kids to burn plastics in the backyard like my neighbors do.
Being so conscientious as yourself did you give up your car, now power your house with solar panels, give up holidays so you do not have to use polluting airplanes. Do your part in cleaning up the air we breath, or is that just for others.

Just to note, climate emergency ( fear ) creates money for the media and politicians, if there was no emergency think of the lost revenue.

With your termite analogy, if all of them are coming from your neighbors who is breeding them why bother trying to get rid of them.

 

[TheJames101]

As for not doing anything, I recycle, I walk to places if I can, I do not allow my kids to burn plastics in the backyard like my neighbors do.

Why bother?

 

[maximus.dickus]

As a followup to my previous post(#137). here is the link to the data that I quoted:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change

A perfect fit.

The problem remains what to do? How to convince people to change their current lifestyle? How do you convince 8 billion people not to have so many kids? Why should I care, I have money , comfort, easy life...screw them, lol

Having one fewer child will save 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. Or over a 80 years life span 4688 tonnes. No other action taken per capita can even come close to this.

 

[Bred Sob]

If you choose to ignore scientific consensus, 200 scientific organizations, the articles I have cited, et cetera,

Well, I have finally found a few minutes to take a look at this list of "200" (meaning most likely "a big number", but hey, who is counting) scientific organizations that you utilized to such a great effect for carpet bombing this thread. What can I say, the list is truly impressive. The governor of California ought to be commended for taking time out of his busy schedule to work on its compilation.

One thing bothers me slightly, though. I must say I am especially heartened by finding entries for national academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sudan (two entries), Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and many others. All is not lost. But what is going on with Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, Somalia, Gabon, Congo (two of them), Namibia, Botswana, and many more? Didn't they get the memo? Are they in on this consensus thing or not? This is no kidding matter, the fate of our planet is at stake after all.

Will you please be so kind to clarify.

 

[Bred Sob]

So, these latter countries (or at least their scientific communities) are populated by "flawed individuals", right? Or is Big Oil still throwing its ill-gotten dollars around?

 

[2fast2slow]

So, these latter countries (or at least their scientific communities) are populated by "flawed individuals", right? Or is Big Oil still throwing its ill-gotten dollars around?

i was just trying to say that not every scientist is a genius, they are mere mortals, and some can have totally erroneous (or plain stupid) opinions, but despite that, "science" rolls on...and in the same vain, exterior forces sometimes try to influence the the scientific process for financial gain, but ultimately (sometimes it takes a while) the truth comes out. "Science" always progresses, because truth is truth.

 

[Bred Sob]

"Science" always progresses, because truth is truth.

True. It makes sense, however, to distinguish "science" from the cheap political demagoguery that permeates this thread.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Just a clip from an article I was reading. Judith Curry

I'm mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists,” Curry*claimed early in her testimony. “Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that’s antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purpose,” she said.*[53]

She*goes on to claim*that climate scientists are faced by pressure to maintain certain*views:

*“There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus,” Curry said in her testimony. “Owing to these pressures, and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.”**[53]

 

[Bred Sob]

“There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus,” Curry said in her testimony.[53]

How dare she dispute the conclusions of national academies all over the world, from Cameroon to Zimbabwe and even a few more in between. A racist for sure.