Joe's Garage

[Tim7139]

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

Global warming theory predicts that rising levels of CO2 will gradually warm the air and cause an increasing loss of sea ice. As temperatures rise, ice nearer the equator was predicted to be the first to disappear and over the coming decades ice closer to the poles would be the last to melt. However that is not the reality we are now observing. Antarctic sea ice is mostly located outside the Antarctic Circle (Figure 1) and should be the first to melt due to global warming theory. Yet Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and expanding towards the equator contradicting all the models. As Dr. Laura Landrum from the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote, “Antarctic sea ice area exhibits significant decreasing annual trends in all six [model] ensemble members from 1950 to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice area increase since 1979.”10 (see Figure 2)
OOPS.

And thus, one of the perils of climate modeling.

[Joe's Garage]

Here's your problem Tim -

Originally Posted by Tim7139

You mean the gapeing hole in the ozone layer that healed itself? ...

Ozone Hole 2010



Ozone Hole 2015


All of your arguments reflect the same level of delusion, this is a great source to get familiar with -
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

NASA and NOAA have no reason to "manufacture data" toward some nefarious end.
Ask yourself who stands to lose by moving off of fossil fuels? The big oil companies do, just like the big Tobacco companies in the '80s with cigarettes.
The names have changed, the smear tactics and BS remains the same, as bliss says "Follow The Money".

Bonus question -

Antarctic Sea Ice 2015


Does the photo above fit nicely into the Ozone Hole of 2015?
Hint, think "jigsaw puzzle", you may have a EUREKA! moment.

[Tim7139]

Well, I 'll tell you something rather important, that most of our green minded, selective fact crew does'nt really dwell on, but a fairly rapid elimination of fossil fuels will decimate, FOR DECADES, most if not all of the industrial world economy. That is fact. Kindly save predictable replies because this, friend, is the area of MY professional expertise.
While this as been fun, it now is pretty much a loop tape.

Remember, if you live in Cali, the culpret is bovine methane. This in the state with the self imposed shortage, because they're too stupid to build desalization plants for fear of sucking up a few snail darters.

[Joe's Garage]

The experts say it will put us into a global recession, the severity and duration depends on how quickly and smartly we address the problem. There is no going back, the ecosystem has already been compromised, the longer we wait the worse it gets exponentially. By 2042 some scientists say we've hit the point of no return.

I wouldn't worry so much about the financial impact, it's more about damage control. Today we can reserve a good future at a discount, tomorrow we can reserve a questionable future at full price, next week the offer will be off the table.

[bliss]

Want to know why us "deniers" are skeptical of the dire predictions?

What was the picture on the cover of An Inconvenient Truth? Hurricane Katrina. We were told that if we didn't do something right away, that we would have many more storms just like it. And yet, not a single cat 3 hurricane in 10 years. Not one. Miami would be underwater by now. The North Pole would be completely ice free. None of these predictions came true, not even close. And yet, we are called names because what we see is different from what we were told we would see, and we dare to ask why.

I wish the issue wasn't so politicized. If it is as serious as a lot of folks are saying then it needs to be addressed, but when the solution always involves some massive redistribution of wealth and overwhelming government regulation, I get a little suspicious.

Then I see the biggest advocates have some of the largest individual footprints and getting rich off of policy changes, I'm even more worried.

If this the number one issue facing humanity , you should not be jetting around the world in private jets like crazy, building huge houses, have multiple houses, and suggest the poor guy driving his pick up to work at a coal mine is the problem and he needs to pay more for gas to compensate some other country, it does not go over well.

When Al Gore moves into a Condo and starts taking public transportation, or Kristoff limits his travel to one continent a month, or the Hedge fund manger gives back his profits he made on the energy industry to working folks instead of Millionaire POTUS candidates that jet around the world, then come talk to me. If you get an exemption from then everyone gets an exemption.

It's like being a sponsor for an AA member yet you show up at the meeting swigging from a bottle of Jack Daniels and lecture against alcohol. Amazing!


Earth Heading for 'mini ice age' Within 15 Years

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by bliss

Want to know why us "deniers" are skeptical of the dire predictions?

What was the picture on the cover of An Inconvenient Truth? Hurricane Katrina. We were told that if we didn't do something right away, that we would have many more storms just like it. And yet, not a single cat 3 hurricane in 10 years. Not one. Miami would be underwater by now. The North Pole would be completely ice free. None of these predictions came true, not even close. And yet, we are called names because what we see is different from what we were told we would see, and we dare to ask why.

I wish the issue wasn't so politicized. If it is as serious as a lot of folks are saying then it needs to be addressed, but when the solution always involves some massive redistribution of wealth and overwhelming government regulation, I get a little suspicious.

Then I see the biggest advocates have some of the largest individual footprints and getting rich off of policy changes, I'm even more worried.

If this the number one issue facing humanity , you should not be jetting around the world in private jets like crazy, building huge houses, have multiple houses, and suggest the poor guy driving his pick up to work at a coal mine is the problem and he needs to pay more for gas to compensate some other country, it does not go over well.

When Al Gore moves into a Condo and starts taking public transportation, or Kristoff limits his travel to one continent a month, or the Hedge fund manger gives back his profits he made on the energy industry to working folks instead of Millionaire POTUS candidates that jet around the world, then come talk to me. If you get an exemption from then everyone gets an exemption.

It's like being a sponsor for an AA member yet you show up at the meeting swigging from a bottle of Jack Daniels and lecture against alcohol. Amazing!


Earth Heading for 'mini ice age' Within 15 Years

Al Gore....founder of the global warming INDUSTRY.

[Joe's Garage]

bliss, I understand your point and agree with it, there is a ton of BS flying around on both sides of the issue. Meteorologists have a hard enough time forecasting normal weather patterns, to think anyone can accurately predict what climate change will do and when is plain arrogance. That's not to say it isn't real, I let pictures tell the story and there are plenty out there showing what is happening, or has happened.

[Joe's Garage]

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

Translation, " the far left wing of our democratic donors, will not abide"
Those thousands of jobs..... Not his problem. Who would have thought we 'd finally get somebody that makes Jimmy Carter look good in comparison?

By the way the oil still gets pumped, it still gets used, it still gets shipped.....only more by those clean burning deisel tank trucks. There's your "step in the right direction".

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

KXL was rejected due to politics, not environmental protection. The oil will still get to market - Canada will either ship it via rail, or by pipeline either the west or east coast then via ships. Both rail and ships are less efficient, generate more CO2 and pose a greater risk of environment damage.

The reality is Hillary Clinton has finally publicly stated she's opposed to KXL and Barack Obama's rejection of KXL shows his support for her candidacy.

If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

KXL was rejected due to politics, not environmental protection. The oil will still get to market - Canada will either ship it via rail, or by pipeline either the west or east coast then via ships. Both rail and ships are less efficient, generate more CO2 and pose a greater risk of environment damage.

The reality is Hillary Clinton has finally publicly stated she's opposed to KXL and Barack Obama's rejection of KXL shows his support for her candidacy.

If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

I just pulled that info from the New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us...line.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

... If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

Normally I would say yes but to reduce demand means implementing alternate fuels for energy which no one will do willingly, after all it costs money. I say stick it to 'em in a way that forces action, reduce supply so it becomes so damned expensive they have to move to alternate fuels

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Normally I would say yes but to reduce demand means implementing alternate fuels for energy which no one will do willingly, after all it costs money. I say stick it to 'em in a way that forces action, reduce supply so it becomes so damned expensive they have to move to alternate fuels

The method used by a number of governments to reduce demand is simple - taxation. I know many will resist any increase in the price of fuel, but look at Europe, the price of fuel at the pumps and what that has done to change the mix of vehicles on the road and buyer behaviour. Canada is, in many ways, very similar to the U.S., yet higher fuel taxation over a period of years has resulted in different buyer consumer behaviour. For example, for many years the most popular vehicle was smaller than in the U.S. (e.g. Honda Civic vs Toyota Camry or Ford Taurus). Compact CUVs / SUVs are far more common than larger ones, etc.

Canadians probably also purchase more diesel vehicles than Americans, at least partially due to the fact diesel typically costs less, not more, than gasoline. It may also have something to do with lower population density, longer trips, and idling vehicles for long periods in cold weather to keep the vehicle warm.

There is no doubt higher fuel taxes, resulting in higher costs at the pumps, drive consumers to select vehicles with lower fuel consumption. Politically it's a hot potato, but there is no doubt it works.

[Joe's Garage]

Yep, taxation is the way to do it, it's coming. I was thinking, for all we really know it may be a little too little a little too late.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RqrwQniI7M&feature=youtu.be"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RqrwQniI7M&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

Scary thought if you believe it, and no one will really know until we have either dodged the bullet or know we are screwed.

The 11th Hour
Narrative from many, I just can't believe all of these people are part of some 'larger conspiracy'.
[ame="https://vimeo.com/107108296"]https://vimeo.com/107108296[/ame]

[Tim7139]

This just in.....Bacon causes global warming..... I s..t you not.
Over the last few weeks, we learned bacon, and red meat are carcinogens and that bacon is the equivalent of Winstons. This from the research with sketchy backup data from the WHO. As we approach Paris climate talks and WHO last, best hope for a global treaty, we see a lot of chatter within the organization that a big goal is major changes in food production, i.e. animal production, [the methane deal ], which the organization tied to the cancer research.
So much for independent thought.

[bliss]

“The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out.… World oil production can probably keep going up for another 6 or 8 years. But sometime in the 1980’s, it can’t go up any more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.”

“To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful—but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs and to some greater inconvenience for everyone. But the sacrifices can be gradual, realistic, and they are necessary.”

“We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and our grandchildren.”

– Jimmy Carter, Energy Address to the Nation, April 18, 1977

[Joe's Garage]

You don't need to go back 35 years to find ridiculous predictions, many are more current and from both sides of the argument. That's why I say look at the photo evidence, you can't argue with something you can see and touch. When you have 97% of all the climate scientists in the world in agreement then maybe you should listen, that level of consensus is on par with doctors agreeing cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past that would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

You don't need to go back 35 years to find ridiculous predictions, many are more current and from both sides of the argument. That's why I say look at the photo evidence, you can't argue with something you can see and touch. When you have 97% of all the climate scientists in the world in agreement then maybe you should listen, that level of consensus is on par with doctors agreeing cigarettes cause lung cancer.

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past that would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

97%?????? Really? Yet another absolute bulls..t statistic.
River ice, animal ranges, trees flowering sooner? This is what's called an ever changing planet, and it's been going on for a few million years now.
What's next......woodland fairies shedding their little jackets?
Let's try and remember that ,unfortunately, the vast majority of this comes from the college professor, closed loop type of mentality that comes from generations of academics that thrive without ever leaving their comfy elitist environments, are without ability to deal with anything or anyone with opinion not lockstep in line, which is why so many graduates are ill equipped for how the real world works.
You only have to look at the current resident of the white house to see a shining example of this on display daily.

[Joe's Garage]

A perfectly predictable response Tim, I'm sure you have all the "denial techniques" committed to memory but we only need to bring up the first two.

The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial -

1. Fake experts
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.

We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.

2. Logical fallacies
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.

The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.

[Tim7139]

Irony.....Arguing in perpetuity for the cause for climate on a forum dedicated to internal combustion powered vehicles that represent the highest level of pollution.

Enjoy the koolaid.

[Joe's Garage]

Ironic yes, but maybe better here than on a Tesla forum eh? BTW, looks like that gaping hole in your logic is starting to heal itself,
"combustion powered vehicles that represent the highest level of pollution". Well done Tim, keep learning, the truth is out there ...