Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[dvcochran]

Ok, I am clear on what you are saying and I do disagree in that there is a good understanding of what is going on, at least in terms of it being quite bad. If anything, the lack of understanding is revealed where a bad prediction turns out to be not as bad as it actually is. The science is good and clear in that the effects of greenhouse gasses like methane and carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and how it is affecting the global climate is not a mystery, not by a long margin. The gains they are making in their understanding reveals the problem to be worse than previously thought.

Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia.
Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.

 

[Flying Crane]

Previously? There is no previously. That is my point, we now have this tremendous amount of data that has to coalesce. So much data that it is what is triggering the alarmist reaction. Yes, we need to acknowledge the data and respond in a responsible manner. What exactly that is we do not know yet. Close to throwing darts blindfolded. There are certainly corrections that should be made. Adding catalytic converters to cars in the '70,s for example. The lower level atmosphere has been improved. Efforts like these should be stronger in Asia.
Methane? Man is the top predator. There are fewer animals globally than they were 200 years ago. Studies of the atmosphere over the largest stock yards in the U.S. and China report no differences. We will figure it out in time.

Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear. After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.

So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.

The truth turns out to be much worse than previously thought.

This stuff is well understood. The more that is uncovered, the worse it proves to be. But overall, the science of it is well understood. There is no need to sit back and pretending we don’t know what it means. Even if the full magnitude of the problem is still being revealed, we do know with certainty that it is very bad. What will NOT be revealed is that this is all needless hysteria. It will NOT be revealed that this is not a real and serious problem.

 

[Flying Crane]

Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear. After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.

So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.

The truth turns out to be much worse than previously thought.

This stuff is well understood. The more that is uncovered, the worse it proves to be. But overall, the science of it is well understood. There is no need to sit back and pretending we don’t know what it means. Even if the full magnitude of the problem is still being revealed, we do know with certainty that it is very bad. What will NOT be revealed is that this is all needless hysteria. It will NOT be revealed that this is not a real and serious problem.

Relevant link: The scientist who predicted ice-sheet collapse — 50 years ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-03-alarming-polar-ice-sheets.amp

Short-term changes in Antarctica's ice shelves are key to predicting their long-term fate

In just a few years, Antarctic 'ice loss' tripled - Futurity

For starters.

 

[Flying Crane]

Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear. After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.

So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.

The truth turns out to be much worse than previously thought.

This stuff is well understood. The more that is uncovered, the worse it proves to be. But overall, the science of it is well understood. There is no need to sit back and pretending we don’t know what it means. Even if the full magnitude of the problem is still being revealed, we do know with certainty that it is very bad. What will NOT be revealed is that this is all needless hysteria. It will NOT be revealed that this is not a real and serious problem.

I mix-used a term here. Ice shelf is already floating on the ocean. So if ice shelf melts/collapses it does not really contribute to rise in sea level, but it is indicative of warming in the ocean which causes it to collapse. However, ice shelf acts as a buttress to keep the landed ice sheets from sliding into the ocean, which would contribute to sea level rise. When ice shelf collapses, it makes it easier for landed ice sheets to slip.

So when I said ice shelf above in my previous post, I should have said ice sheet.

 

[dvcochran]

Previously, meaning based on the collected data there are dire predictions of, for example, how long it might take for a particular piece of ice shelf to disappear. After predicting perhaps 50-100 years, that particular ice shelf suddenly slips into the ocean just a couple years later because what was not understood was how much melting is actually happening under the ice, creating a slick platform and causing it to suddenly slip into the ocean.

So, based on the data the scientists make dire predictions, which then prove to be not nearly dire enough.

The truth turns out to be much worse than previously thought.

This stuff is well understood. The more that is uncovered, the worse it proves to be. But overall, the science of it is well understood. There is no need to sit back and pretending we don’t know what it means. Even if the full magnitude of the problem is still being revealed, we do know with certainty that it is very bad. What will NOT be revealed is that this is all needless hysteria. It will NOT be revealed that this is not a real and serious problem.

It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.

 

[Flying Crane]

It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.

It is new data to, say, 250 years ago before we had an awareness of the issue.

I’m sorry, but the science is well established. If you don’t want to believe that, then you are choosing to reject real science.

I’m not taking my information from any news media. I actually read college text books for personal interest. It is easy to find this information in online scientific websites and journals. This is not politically driven propaganda. This is science.

Another link to an interview with Dr. David Barber, specialist in sea ice and climate change at the University of Manitoba. Near the end of the interview he discusses how the sheet ice in Greenland is melting about 600% faster than current models had predicted, which were based on the climate changing effects of CO2 and what we currently understood (interview was in February 2017) about climate change.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models | naked capitalism

The thing is, ice sheets in places like Antarctica can be drilled to a depth that recovers ice layers deposited tens of thousands of years ago, and older. Analysis of that ice gives us a real window into climate conditions from that era which can be compared to current conditions. This enables scientists to see a long-term picture of what climate was, what it is, and track how and how quickly it changed and when those changes happened. This is real stuff.

Since you mentioned news conduits, I need to ask: what is your source for news?

 

[DaveB]

It should NOT be hysteria, period. How is a fatalist view doing any good? Again, (and again) much of this IS new information. Reading and listening to only one news conduit does no good, other than to feed your own hysteria.

Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.

Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.

But if we make the recommend changes, invest in newer energy tech and low emission manufacturing, what exactly is the downside?

The petrochemical industries are the only people with the money and expertise to lead in green tech so it need not cost jobs or drop share prices.
It will take effort, and perhaps dip in disposable cash as the companies invest rather than just reap rewards. But I can't see what the benefits of this dithering is?

 

[Flying Crane]

Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.

Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.

But if we make the recommend changes, invest in newer energy tech and low emission manufacturing, what exactly is the downside?

The petrochemical industries are the only people with the money and expertise to lead in green tech so it need not cost jobs or drop share prices.
It will take effort, and perhaps dip in disposable cash as the companies invest rather than just reap rewards. But I can't see what the benefits of this dithering is?

Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...

Wait a minute. That makes no sense at all.

 

[DaveB]

Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...

Wait a minute. That makes no sense at all.

We should start this trend in the rest of our lives.

- as your lawyer I advise you to say nothing and you'll be fine!
- Your honour I wish to make a statement!

- we've found a small tumour in your brain, it's easily removable so long as we act now.
- Actually I think I'll wait: there was a doctor on tv who said symptoms like mine could actually mean my brain is working better.

- The architect said this was a load bearing wall, but I think he's being paid by the Chinese to keep my decor in the 80s so I'm going to knock it through anyway.

 

[dvcochran]

Where are you getting this, "nobody knows angle",? I'm pretty sure it's not from Climatologists.

Let's say that we keep ignoring the information from the scientists, and they are right, we end up with irreversible problems.

But if we make the recommend changes, invest in newer energy tech and low emission manufacturing, what exactly is the downside?

The petrochemical industries are the only people with the money and expertise to lead in green tech so it need not cost jobs or drop share prices.
It will take effort, and perhaps dip in disposable cash as the companies invest rather than just reap rewards. But I can't see what the benefits of this dithering is?

ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.

 

[dvcochran]

It is new data to, say, 250 years ago before we had an awareness of the issue.

I’m sorry, but the science is well established. If you don’t want to believe that, then you are choosing to reject real science.

I’m not taking my information from any news media. I actually read college text books for personal interest. It is easy to find this information in online scientific websites and journals. This is not politically driven propaganda. This is science.

Another link to an interview with Dr. David Barber, specialist in sea ice and climate change at the University of Manitoba. Near the end of the interview he discusses how the sheet ice in Greenland is melting about 600% faster than current models had predicted, which were based on the climate changing effects of CO2 and what we currently understood (interview was in February 2017) about climate change.

Greenland Ice Sheet Melting 600 Percent Faster Than Predicted by Current Models | naked capitalism

The thing is, ice sheets in places like Antarctica can be drilled to a depth that recovers ice layers deposited tens of thousands of years ago, and older. Analysis of that ice gives us a real window into climate conditions from that era which can be compared to current conditions. This enables scientists to see a long-term picture of what climate was, what it is, and track how and how quickly it changed and when those changes happened. This is real stuff.

Since you mentioned news conduits, I need to ask: what is your source for news?

My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint.
I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.

 

[Flying Crane]

My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint.
I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.

With your level of education this is all the more surprising that you are unwilling to accept that the science on this is quite solid. This notion that we don’t know what it all means, well yes, we do.

As for my politics, it was never my intention to bring that into the discussion because the science speaks for itself. Political discussion is not allowed on Martialtalk and I don’t intend to violate that rule. I will leave off with an observation: from what I have seen, liberal-leaning folks tend to hold with the scientists more often, and conservative-leaning folks seem to want to reject the science. I won’t pretend to understand what that is all about, though I do have some suspicions. But I guess then that it would not be surprising if a liberal news source would report on some real science, while a conservative one would not, and might even try to discredit the science.

 

[Flying Crane]

So the prediction was way wrong. Welcome to science.

Is that your takeaway from what I said? Wow.

 

[Flying Crane]

ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.

So regarding what is happening with the climate, what other information streams should have a say on what is actually happening? The petroleum industry, perhaps?

As for the rest of what you say, I haven’t seen anyone say we need to just shut everything down and give up all we have built. Why would you assume someone is putting forth that as the answer? I just don’t get the extremism in that kind of argument.

 

[dvcochran]

Is that your takeaway from what I said? Wow.

Yep.

 

[DaveB]

My business is in control and automation. I am an electrical engineer by trade and education (2 Masters degrees). Frankly, I hate flexing my intelligent muscles this way. It is in my nature to question everything. My job which is figuring out ways to solve complex manufacturing and process problems requires it. I work in a diverse mix of environments, all of which have environmental impacts. It is part of my job to understand how and if what decisions I make have an environmental, along with an economic impact. I have to know more than a laypersons understanding. Frankly your "naked capitalism" says it all about your leftist viewpoint.
I am going to stop here because this is going off the rails and this is not what this forum is about.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.

So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?

 

[DaveB]

ALL of this is already being done. Maybe not at the pace the liberals like but it is being done. FWIW "green tech" is nothing more than a political buzz word. Again, (and again) if you listen to only one stream of information, climatologist for example, you gen ONLY one opinion. That is not informed information. It is hearing what you want to hear.
I agree that our petroleum energy dependency should and will change. That is a global reality. People way smarter than me are working on ways to replace petroleum. Are you willing to do without transportation, and heat, and most of the things in your house that are in some way dependent on petroleum? Most people are not so demand plays a HUGE roll. Oh by the way, it is the largest part of our economy, directly and indirectly. Are you ready to give up the luxuries this country affords? It is easy to stand in the me too crowd and cry.

Did you not see the part.where 200 scientific bodies around the world signed in support of the scientific consensus on climate change?

How many sources do you require?

NASA has more than just climatologists by it's self. Although again the logic of listening to economists being paid by the oil industry instead of the scientists who study the field escapes me. It seems like a good way to muddy the waters without any real benefit.

And as was pointed out, who suggested such immediate extremes? If ever such suggestions are necessary it willnknly be because of the inaction and lethargy of world governments.

 

[dvcochran]

Let’s say we, as non-specialists who have not actually studied the climate, choose to reject the information given to us by the climatologists, those educated specialists who have actually studied the issue, because we think somehow that we know better...

Wait a minute. That makes no sense at all.

When was that ever said? I never said don't listen to climatologist. I said don't listen to only climatologist. One of the biggest mistakes I have made in the past is passionately thinking my idea was the only way to a solution. I am become wise enough to listen to other ideas and opinions.

So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?

The bean counter's standard input. How do they know much about life cycle? Automotive line changes are forced by product changes so the life cycle is not really an issue as it is a known quantity. Process environments like WTP/WWTP are planned, very long term cycles. Then 5 years down the road the city population has grown 25% faster than planned. That can get very involved. I seldom get involved with internal politics but do provide a lot of data to justify projects. Surprisingly the CEO usually doesn't have as much swing vote at the capital project level in most larger operations. It takes an average of 3 years to plan most of our larger projects. They are unavoidable with our standard clientele but we shy away from the emergency, short term projects. The crystal ball thing is real.

 

[dvcochran]

So what do you do when the manager with a degree in accounting tells the CEO that your recommendations are unnecessary wastes of money and the stuff you said to replace because it's going to fail imminently, is good for another 10 years?

I am curious of this is personal and present experience? Are you currently in this situation? I would love to hear the details if that is the case.

 

[dvcochran]

So regarding what is happening with the climate, what other information streams should have a say on what is actually happening? The petroleum industry, perhaps?

As for the rest of what you say, I haven’t seen anyone say we need to just shut everything down and give up all we have built. Why would you assume someone is putting forth that as the answer? I just don’t get the extremism in that kind of argument.

This is not meant to stir the pot. I found it a very interesting article in a weekly cattlemen's memo email. 5 Deadly Diseases Emerging from Global Warming
I have seen several times where we have received cattle from or shipped cattle to other states and they get sick. It always surprises me how a distance of say <1000 miles can have such affects but I know it is real. It is certainly believable there are unknown bacteria in ice that is 1000's of years old.