NCAA cooked the books on climate change.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html
Printable View
NCAA cooked the books on climate change.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html
LOL...I think you mean NOAA. The only thing the NCAA cooks up is the supposed academic achievements of star players from prestigious universities...<cough, cough> UNC - Rashad McCants <cough,cough>....ugh sorry about that. Nasty flu going around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Anyways, it's garbage like this that makes me second guess the GW theory. And by the way, it IS still considered a THEORY by everybody in the scientific community, even though the media likes to throw that term around as an accepted fact.
Even in conservative states that have glaciers, especially in Alaska, people believe in Global Warming because they can actually see it.
Not so. It is actually scientifically impossible to add greenhouse gases into any atmosphere and to not cause warming. Otherwise the earth would have the same temperature as the Moon since both are approximate equal distances from the sun. The average temperature on the moon is about 0F, which is about the same as the North Pole.Quote:
And by the way, it IS still considered a THEORY by everybody in the scientific community
Greenhouse gases aren't really a bad thing in themselves as without them, day time temperatures would be around 224F and night-time temperatures would be around -298F. This is not a theory.
Very few scientists would argue that warming isn't occurring or that it wouldn't occur with more greenhouse gases. What they tend to argue about is how much effect extra greenhouse gases would add since burning hydrocarbons only adds a small percentage to the atmosphere. The small percentage scientist that say that it won't effect temperatures that much claim that the difference is negligible since greenhouse gases only make a very small percentage of the atmosphere.
Scott, you keep mentioning northern hemisphere examples. Just out of curiosity, do you have southern hemisphere examples? Because I heard the glaciers are increasing in the southern hemisphere...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
As the original poster, now you know why I'm confused and still am.
Attachment 85862
Glaciers are shrinking in almost all areas that have temperatures rising above freezing, including in the Southern Hemisphere.Quote:
Because I heard the glaciers are increasing in the southern hemisphere...
What you may be thinking of is Antarctic sea ice, rather that glaciers. Antarctic sea ice has increased in recent years. Some areas on the Antarctic Ice Sheet have also increased, but temperatures there never reach freezing.
It is true that if the ice caps melted, the sea level would rise about 216 feet, but there is actually no chance of this anytime soon. At the South Pole, for example, the temperature has never risen above 10F since records have been taken. It would have to warm 22 degrees to just to reach freezing, which almost certainly isn't going to happen, at least not for a very, very long time.
Many people over-exaggerate the danger in this regard. Unless something incredibly catastrophic happens, there is no chance of the ice sheets completely melting or even coming close to that. They may shrink some, but they will not be melting away anytime soon. It would take a huge catastrophic event to do that and we probably wouldn't survive it anyway.
Sea level could rise a few feet, which would not be good for many areas, but it won't rise 216 feet.
Say what you will, but I still contend that anthropogenic global warming is a theory. Otherwise, why did the earth cool during the 1970's, when the media warned of an impending ice age?
And why has the earth undergone numerous episodes of warming prior to the industrial revolution, when fossil fuels were not being used on a massive scale?
How did the last ice age end? Warming, right? Were cave men burning coal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
I read this. It brings up very compelling evidence. Most of it irrefutable.
But Earth's warming since the industrial revolution isn't an uninterrupted straight line upwards. There have been dips where the climate has cooled (1970's), and 2016 was basically flat. So therein lie my doubts:
If GW is attributed to humans, why is it not a straight line up? Why the dips? Why the cooling in the 70's?
Why wasn't 2016 the warmest year ever, since there were more fossil fuel consumers in 2016 than any other time in history?
I feel a bit sorry for those of you that have future concerns that have to (or want to) worry about this. I never had any kids, the the entire universe, as far as I'm concerned, will exist for the next 30-40 years, if I'm lucky. From now until then I'll keep living like Caligula...thick steaks and climate controlled comfort. After I check out...good luck to Mother Earth and all it's inhabitants.
I would imagine that it's people like me that gum up the works for those beating the drum about doing something drastic in regards to us pesky humans and all the havoc wreak. Rather ironic, isn't it?...those that are pumping out zero replacement humans are the problem.
Anyway...when I can start painting entire exteriors here in Denver between December and February, then perhaps I'll entertain some concern.
Yeah, and it's rather strange that global warming seems to wander around the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
2016 was the hottest year ever. It's the third record breaking year in a row:Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ear-on-record/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/s...pdateblack.gif
As far as I know, no one has ever said that all climate changes are caused by humans. There are lots of factors that cause the climate to change. Just some of them are greenhouse gases, sunspots, solar iridescence, volcanoes, vegetation, fires, continental drift, tilt of the axis, etc. In fact, billions of years from now the earth will get cooked and absorbed by the sun, unless you believe divine intervention will stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
It is well known that the earth has been warmer in the past and long before humans existed. In fact, even though the continents have moved it is also known that dinosaurs existed below the Antarctic Circle, which if they still existed, they couldn't live today.
In the course of the Earth's history, we are actually still in an ice age right now.
So, without any human intervention, the climate has been changing for billions of years. Just because something exists without humans doesn't mean that humans can't effect it. A volcano is a tiny little speck on a globe, but a volcanic eruption does cause the climate to change. If so, why wouldn't humans be able to change it?
If we had better science programs in our country, then we could all interpret the data easily.
But wait! The data on this topic is really, REALLY easy to interpret. Global increases in temperature over the past 50 years are directly tied to atmospheric CO2 levels, which are directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. I feel sorry for those that don't have the brainpower to put those three puzzle pieces together.
That authorless article from a mediocre news outlet is meaningless. If it were really groundbreaking, somebody with a sense of journalistic pride would attach their name to the top.
So, the debate isn't if the phenomenon is caused by man. (Your brain is broken if you think that is debatable.) The debate today is, what should be done about it, if anything?
Attachment 85864
Attachment 85865
"The great thing about science is that it is true weather or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Damn you spell check. :flipa:Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
FWIW - I did originally type NOAA into my phone.
^^^THIS^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
The real question is would trading in the gas guzzling bad ass Corvette for a strawberry douche powered Toyota Prius really make a difference to global warming.
:popcorn:
So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.
Not to mention...given 20 minutes and Google, I could pull up a bunch of articles simultaneously proving and disproving anthropogenic GW.
And Scott -- doesn't the term "anthropogenic" specifically mean "human caused?"
Confused yet?
To further muddy the waters, I give you the Global Warming Hiatus -- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...16EF000417/pdf
So the Earth didn't warm at a slower rate for the last 13 years -- it just "redistributed" the heat better? What the hell are we supposed to believe? Just sounds like convenient rebranding to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
Yale University disagrees with you: http://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon_e...oupled_economy
Is Yale University a good enough source?
Boy, this one sure gets people all gnarled out! It's occurred to me that those that doubt it are calm and those that advocate it are angry and insulting...not all, of course, but it sure doesn't bode well for a persuasive argument.
For the sake of peace, I personally declare and BELIEVE that global warming is indeed happening. There...now I'm pierced, tattooed, dreadlocked and fit in with the nodding comrades!
http://www.bogley.com/forum/image/jp...FFFABRRRQB/9k=
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotimer
LOL...It's a hot button topic that's for certain. People get so incensed about it, and I still wonder why? I can appreciate both sides of the debate.I like to say that I align more closely with an objective approach, and most of what Scott P says really resonates with me.
My stance on GW has gone through a progression that can be illustrated with the following rudimentary list:
1. (High School) ---> GW is a hoax.
2. (Early college years) ---> GW is a scam.
3. (Approaching college graduation) ---> OK, maybe there's something to this.
4. (Circa 2006) ---> So it's real, but is it necessarily our fault?
5. (Circa 2012) ---> Wait, they switched it to "Climate Change" now? Hmmmm, sounds convenient.
6. (Circa 2016) ---> Warming slowed down eh? Howcome this isn't front page news?
7. Now ---> Warming? Is there anything we can possibly do to reverse it? If not, then why freak out about it....???
Both are correct. The emphasis is on "recorded". Unless of course the dinosaurs were a whole lot smarter than we thought they were.Quote:
So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.
Although it is known that the Earth was warmer (or colder) in the past, there are no recorded weather readings beyond the past few hundred years. For example, no one could tell you what the exact daily temperature every single day in the year one million years ago, but we can tell what the climate was like from fossil records and other indicators.
There are many ways to do this. Ice cores in Antarctica go back about 1.5 million years. Ice has trapped air bubbles and dust particles. If you wanted to know what the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were, say one million years ago, you would pull a syringed air sample out of a bubble in the ice that corresponds to that age. The air trapped in the ice one million years ago is still the same air that you pull out with a syringe.
Of course, 1.5 million years is really a blink of an eye in geologic terms. Besides ice core samples, there are several other ways to construct climate records. Without going into too much detail, some of the methods are ocean sediment (sediments have been deposited at the bottom of the ocean for millions of years), calcium carbonate deposits, evidence of tree pollen (no tree pollen = too cold or too dry for trees, at least since the existence of trees), etc.
Of course, sometimes it's really easy to tell what the climate was in certain point at time. For example, here is a photo I took of huge petrified logs in the middle of the desert in Utah:
http://www.summitpost.org/images/medium/846643.JPG
Since the log is in the Chinle Formation is from the late Triassic, we can come to the conclusion that the climate in the late Triassic at this location is different from what it is now.
It is also known from the fossil record that mass extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian due to high carbon dioxide levels in the ocean. A lot of species (estimated at 95%) disappeared in the fossil record, and it is also known that few fish survived since the fossil record in the late Triassic is very uniform, which indicates that few fish species survived the extinction. That said though, some other species thrived, such as the trees of which remains are visible in the photo. Obviously, none of this was caused by humans.
So, there are ways of putting together past climate conditions even though there was no one there recording conditions.
Of course, if anyone here believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, disregard this entire post. :haha:
Who are you referring to? No one in this conversation has been angry or insulting. :ne_nau:Quote:
Boy, this one sure gets people all gnarled out! It's occurred to me that those that doubt it are calm and those that advocate it are angry and insulting...not all, of course, but it sure doesn't bode well for a persuasive argument.
just keep in mind, this is about heat retention, which occurs both in the atmosphere and in the ocean (water has a much greater heat capacity) and there is a dynamic heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. during different times the ocean could absorb more heat or give off more heat which could cause an otherwise long-term upward trend to fluctuate in its rate of increase over time (there is evidence for this).Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
the term climate change was proposed by republican pollster and wordsmith frank luntz during the bush administration which adopted it to replace global warming. (he's also the one responsible for other greatest hits like death tax, job creators, death panels, gov't takeover of health care, etc.) some view climate change as a more apt way of describing it for a variety of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Oh...that was a couple talking heads I saw on TV last night, or was it today? Last week? 15 years ago? 1979?. I can't remember...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
My data (NASA's data) shows CO2 accumulation over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Yale's data shows emissions over time.
They are two totally different data sets that don't disagree with one another. Both data sets are likely correct. I'm sorry you did not know the difference.
I don't think the Prius would help at all, because of how humans do things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
We are like ants at a picnic, climbing all over an apple pie. We reproduce and eat as fast as we can, as long as the pie is there. It's like a chemical reaction, and the pie is the rate limiting factor.
If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.
But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
Uh, thanks for the heartfelt apology. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
I would contend that they aren't totally different. One set describes the amount of CO2 that is being released annually (Yale), the other the rate that the released CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere...one affects the other, right?
BINGO! This is why I don't worry about it...it's like that movie where the guy is screaming for everyone to calm down while the riot swirls all around him. It's futile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
Silly pony.... no one gets to have another kid along with another Corvette..... that is without doubt an either or type deal. The only thing another kid will get you is a 'mom' car with extra seating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
Are you sure you're not a Republican?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
:roflol:
The two data sets ARE totally different. One is rate (Yale), the other is quantity (NASA). You were trying to disprove the quantity data with rate data, which does not make sense. You must use quantity data to disprove quantity data.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
:lol8::haha::lol8::haha: True dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
No need to call names! :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
It is funny, I had a long, draw out argument with a good friend about 10 years ago about this topic. I thought we could save the world. But then I realized that all fossil fuels are going to get burned no matter what.
Does that make me a realist?
So we all know that burning fossil fuels creates CO2. Vegetation or anything that uses photosynthesis turns this CO2 into glucose (sugar/energy for the plant) followed by the releasing of Oxygen into the air that we breathe (although we technically breath approx 77% nitrogen, 12% oxygen, and 1% argon).Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
With the seasons throughout the year, one could say that the Earth "breathes". The world's CO2 levels significantly drop in the spring (as vegetation grows) and exhales in the fall (as the leaves fall off).
What is happening with these burning of fossils fuels is that we are releasing excess CO2 which nature can't and doesn't keep up with. Therefore that CO2 remains in the atmosphere expounding the greenhouse effect.
The planet Venus is quite hot, but not due to its proximity to the sun. The clouds on Venus and its atmosphere is nearly all CO2. Most of the solar rays, or "insolation", doesn't even hit the surface because it is reflected back into space due to Venus's atmosphere.
The worry is that Earth will become like Venus if CO2 increases and isn't controlled.
The worry with climate change/global warming is that these greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are enhancing global warming (greenhouse effect).
Warming the earth by a few degrees has significant repercussions. And my personal belief is that, yes, us humans are expediting this process due to fossil fuel burning.
The result of global warming are: polar thawing (Greenland, Antarctica), polar ice sea melting, changes in global surface temperatures, more extreme weather, sea-level rise, and loss of habitat.
On a side-note but still relevant, at work there is this large infographic about the temperature inversion in Utah and what pollution source gets added in. Guess what the largest source of this pollutant is (and at 56%) - cars! So it's not the one-offs like stericycle or refineries that are contributing to it. Ironically they are only at 11%.
So I call BS to people who say that them switching to a Prius, for example, is not going to change the world.
With that logic, it is exactly that, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't because THEY refuse to change.
But those who are willing to change, willing to adopt cleaner and more earth responsible practices are slowly but steadily changing policy and minds. This is how the world will change. Even China who was horrific with emissions is starting to realize and crack down on these emission controls and has started to become more environmentally conscious. And it's slowly showing that.
Back to my point and relevance of the smog inversion problem in Salt Lake City. So, us common folk, are responsible for more than half of the pollution in the air, yet we point the finger at legislators and say "Fix It!!!!". The irony! *WE* are doing this damage to ourselves, and yet, a bunch of us refuse to change or fix our own habits and lament with the phrase "me switching to a cleaner vehicle will solve nothing".
It's a frustrating cycle as you can see. But thankfully younger generations are growing up to be more earth responsible and more environmentally conscious and not follow the examples of the older generations. We don't need to get crazy or excessive but we are becoming more aware of our human-caused problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It makes you pragmatic. You know who else is pragmatic? Donald Trump! I get ya now, a conservative in liberal clothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
ROFLMAO
I'm serious as I ask this...I'm not trying to troll ya. Have you personally banned campfires? Can you enjoy one when someone else fires one up?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotimer
Truthfully, yes I can. I mean it's fire. It's hot. It's feels great. Although I try to avoid the ones that are similar to your pic. :P
Is it hypocritical, sure. But just because I enjoy it, does it make it all or nothing, and therefore I shouldn't try to change?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, you know what they say...every little bit counts, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
In the middle of May every year, I attend a week long gathering in Moab with mountain biking friends (go to Adventure Trekkers.com to join us) and one of the gals turned 50 so her husband arranged for all the guys to give her a "Chippendales" routine. We have a party with drums and a big fire every night. A sweat lodge, too...clothing optional.
Anyway, most everyone there is liberal...very liberal. Yet they all show up and enjoy the burning of whole trees anyway. It's like the Comedy Central Roasts...all these Jewish, liberal comedians giving themselves a pass from the PC stuff to indulge in gluttony and debauchery that normally is off limits. Check out the last one, the roast of Rob Lowe.
Ants eating the pie! Even if it's just an occasional indulgence.
I asked about the fire because I've actually backpacked with people that forbid them. Not many, but they exist.
@jman, your post above is excellent. I'd like to expand on the big (biggest?) picture- the overall outcome.
With the Prius, you can change CO2 levels emitted from Salt Lake, but not the world. The fuel you don't burn here will get burned somewhere else. I do agree that everyone in Salt Lake should do their best, pollution wise. The red burn days are helpful, I think we all agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
A willingness to change will not affect the long-term worldwide outcome. For example, I'm not a gluttonous ant that is eating as much pie as I possibly can. My wife and I are aware of what we burn. Our carbon footprint is a fraction of what it was 3 years ago (because we downsized). But try as I might to conserve, entropy will still win a battle of this scale. My neighbor will burn what I do not, which is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is.
The real way to reduce carbon emissions would be to reduce the worldwide birth rate significantly, and not create extra neighbors in the first place.
:blahblah: So much talk. So now what?
No way in hell is the entire planet gonna stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon...or at all. So we're just doomed then? San Diego and Miami will drop into the ocean and we'll start farming Greenland? What's the doomsday liberal scenario?
And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.
Fake blood from Kennedy assassination burst holding tanks and evaporated.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Fake rocket fuel from model water rocket in fake moon shot sprayed over Earth and evaporated.
Road sign lobby triumph.
U-pick!
Why not use the Google machine and find out what is actually gonna happen? http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
I'm still amazed that this is a political topic. It is like saying that the earth being round is a liberal agenda.
Yeah, that sucks that nobody is taking the time to Google crap that you can Google yourself. STOP DODGING RG'S SIMPLE GOOGLE QUESTIONS EVERYONE! SO RUDE!Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
It looks like El Nina might be the cause of the fluctuation that you are obsessing over (a routine fluctuation).
Attachment 85873
What really matters is the average increase in temperature over the past 50 years. An increase of 0.7-0.8 degrees C is a HUGE change over that span of time!
RG, PLEASE take a moment and check out this site. It is awesome! :haha:
Ok so, what is the solution to GW then if it is indeed man made or exacerbated by man burning fossil fuels? My carbon footprint is already pretty low and I have a hard time even listening to the Al Gore's of the world who's carbon footprint is 1,000 times greater than mine (or more!). I don't hear a lot of reasonable solutions. I have a couple of pretty smart scientist friends who have been constantly complaining on social media lately about our local inversion and the Utah State governments lack of doing anything about it. When I ask what solutions they have to solve the problem, all I get is crickets or the standard, "Well, the government should figure it out" or, the oldy but goody comment, "Governor Herbert is only concerned about big business and doesn't care". What are the solutions?
The world is round. GW is caused by humans. There is no if.Quote:
Originally Posted by tallsteve
What can you do?
1. Don't have any more kids.
2. Live only in the space that you need.
3. Drive a smaller and more efficient vehicle.
4. Live closer to work.
5. Recycle.
6. Eat a vegan diet. If you eat meat, avoid beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-...footprint-diet
7. Don't burn coal or truck tires in your fireplace. :haha:
We used to live in 4,000 sq feet, now we live in 1,100. We did not downsize specifically to decrease our footprint, but it has decreased our use of energy substantially. I eat a vegan diet, but was unaware of the footprint of meat until last year. On the negative side, I drive a awesome SUV that gets 15 mpg, and have no interest in giving that up. I'll give myself a 'B' on the green report card.
What can government do? *throwing out a few obvious ideas*
1. Create policies that move us away from coal/oil, and toward natural gas.
2. Create policies that encourage the development and use of alternative energy.
3. Create policies for cleaner burning cars.
And... ?
Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.
Wasn't it just a few posts ago where you were admonishing folks for mixing facts with bullshit to try and sway the ignorant?