DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/592386-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-11-co2-kills-10-billion-people-edition.html)

Psi 03-07-18 07:12 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler (Post 13285286)
I wish plastic were more recyclable. It has a very low recover rate.

You are right. It's also important to reduce usage and reuse. The thing is that it is misleading to simply do an energy balance and argue than it takes just as much energy to recycle something as it does to produce it, so waste is not a big concern. We also have to consider where the waste goes. A very thin plastic bag doesn't take much to make, but if it becomes a floating object in the ocean, it does damage to the environment, more than represented by its energy value.

SFX 03-07-18 06:46 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13264357)
These people who are avoiding having children in order to save the environment seem to be totally unaware that when they were conceived by their own parents, there was also a move to save the world from overpopulation. It's a good thing for them that their own parents ignored the scaremongering that was around back then.

Today, the world has more people than ever before. And today, the average person in the world has more calories of food, more clothing, more square footage of housing, longer life expectancy, more material possessions, and a better standard of living, than at any previous time in history.

I think it is highly likely that in several decades from now, when these people's non-existent children would have otherwise been in adulthood, that the standard of living will be even higher than it is today. The only possible exceptions to this would be if we end up having some horrible disaster such as global communism, large scale nuclear war, artificial intelligence trying to destroy us, nanobots turning everything into a "grey goo," or some other such thing. But if such a global disaster does happen, it won't be due to any of the environmental reasons that are cited by the people in that article.

The leaders of the doomsayer movement benefit tremendously from the fact that the current generation is largely unaware of the failed predictions of the past.

For example, here are some of the failed predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970:

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”


Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13264403)
Over the years, I have read a huge number of articles written by and about environmental doomsayers. And if there is any one thing that I have learned from them, it is that they absolutely positively do not want people to be aware of the failed predictions of the past.

And the second thing that I have learned from them is that they have exactly zero intellectual curiosity as to why those predictions from the past failed to come true. It's as if they are completely against the scientific method of learning from the mistakes of the past.

Real scientists like to learn why previous predictions did not come true.

oh yeah

Troy Stiffler 03-07-18 06:56 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Carelessly polluting the environment because "it'll all be fine" is akin to smokers ignoring all the research that shows smoking is bad for you. And looking to "that one old person who smoked a pack a day".

Maybe nature is playing the long game and eventually we'll be gone. There's only so many tiny particles we can breath (ie fuel emissions, mold spores) and consume (via food). That stuff rolls around in your bloodstream 24/7. And your body can only fight it off and heal itself for so long. Some people get the mutations in different stages of their lives.

Pharoh 03-07-18 07:09 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler (Post 13285854)
Carelessly polluting the environment because "it'll all be fine" is akin to smokers ignoring all the research that shows smoking is bad for you. And looking to "that one old person who smoked a pack a day".

Maybe nature is playing the long game and eventually we'll be gone. There's only so many tiny particles we can breath (ie fuel emissions, mold spores) and consume (via food). That stuff rolls around in your bloodstream 24/7. And your body can only fight it off and heal itself for so long. Some people get the mutations in different stages of their lives.

What?

Seriously, what?

Troy Stiffler 03-07-18 07:20 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Pharoh (Post 13285865)
What?

Seriously, what?

Because this is the only kind of thing you ever seem to say on this forum, all I can do is play your stupid game. I'm sick and fucking tired of conversing with stupid people.

Huh? Dur? Wha?

Pharoh 03-07-18 07:29 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler (Post 13285875)
Because this is the only kind of thing you ever seem to say on this forum, all I can do is play your stupid game. I'm sick and fucking tired of conversing with stupid people.

Huh? Dur? Wha?

What you stated was utter nonsense. Gibberish. I was hoping you might be able to expound and explain, but I guess not.

SFX 03-17-18 12:32 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by smg669 (Post 13284679)
We're so glad you recently joined the forum. Otherwise we would have missed out on your discerning, nuanced commentary. Bravo, sir!

I have not yet unleashed my discerning and nuanced commenting!

(until I reach some number of post I can not even quote links, much less use them)

Until that day comes, pithy satire is all I have.

grundle 03-21-18 06:43 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Psi (Post 13285283)
Why recycle? We can always make more.




Recycling would indeed have kept that plastic out of the ocean.

But so would have putting it into a landfill.

The problem here is littering. People are littering, and it's ending up in the ocean. Shame on them.

Draven 03-21-18 06:48 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13294584)
Recycling would indeed have kept that plastic out of the ocean.

But so would have putting it into a landfill.

The problem here is littering. People are littering, and it's ending up in the ocean. Shame on them.

Where is plastic more harmful - a landfill or the ocean?

grundle 03-21-18 06:55 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Troy Stiffler (Post 13285854)
Carelessly polluting the environment because "it'll all be fine" is akin to smokers ignoring all the research that shows smoking is bad for you. And looking to "that one old person who smoked a pack a day".

Maybe nature is playing the long game and eventually we'll be gone. There's only so many tiny particles we can breath (ie fuel emissions, mold spores) and consume (via food). That stuff rolls around in your bloodstream 24/7. And your body can only fight it off and heal itself for so long. Some people get the mutations in different stages of their lives.


I'm against pollution. But I'm also against doomsaying. I love science and technology. As we get richer and more technologically advanced, there are more and more things that we can do to protect the environment.

Despite this, Paul Ehrlich (leader of the overpopulation doomsayer movement) says that being rich makes the environment worse. He's wrong. Being rich makes the environment better.

In the early stages of economic development, the environment does get worse. But once a certain point of wealth and technology are obtained, the trend reverses, and the environment starts to get better.

Disclaimer: The bolded part was written by me, and I cited sources for my claims:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznet..._Kuznets_curve

Environmental Kuznets curve

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nets_Curve.png

Environmental Kuznets curve: The application of Kuznets curve in environmental studies

The environmental Kuznets curve is a hypothesized relationship between environmental quality and economic development: various indicators of environmental degradation tend to get worse as modern economic growth occurs until average income reaches a certain point over the course of development. Although the subject of continuing debate, some evidence supports the claim that environmental health indicators, such as water and air pollution, show the inverted U-shaped curve. It has been argued that this trend occurs in the level of many of the environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water.

For example, between 1970 and 2006, the United States' inflation-adjusted GDP grew by 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the country more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven increased by 178%. However, during that same period regulatory changes meant that annual emissions of carbon monoxide fell from 197 million tons to 89 million, nitrogen oxides emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million, sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million, particulate emissions fell by 80%, and lead emissions fell by more than 98%.

However, there is little evidence that the relationship holds true for other pollutants, for natural resource use or for biodiversity conservation. For example, energy, land and resource use (sometimes called the "ecological footprint") do not fall with rising income. While the ratio of energy per real GDP has fallen, total energy use is still rising in most developed countries. Another example is the emission of many greenhouse gases, which is much higher in industrialised countries. In addition, the status of many key "ecosystem services" provided by ecosystems, such as freshwater provision and regulation (Perman, et al., 2003), soil fertility, and fisheries,[citation needed] have continued to decline in developed countries.

In general, Kuznets curves have been found for some environmental health concerns (such as air pollution) but not for others (such as landfills and biodiversity). Advocates of the EKC argue that this does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis – the scale of the Kuznets curves may differ for different environmental impacts and different regions. If the search for scalar and regional effects can salvage the concept, it may yet be the case that a given area will need more wealth in order to see a decline in environmental pollutants. In contrast, a thermodynamically enlightened economics suggests that outputs of degraded matter and energy are an inescapable consequence of any use of matter and energy (so holds the second law); some of those degraded outputs will be noxious wastes, and whether and how their production is eliminated depends more on regulatory schemes and technologies at use than on income or production levels. In one view, then, the EKC suggests that "the solution to pollution is more economic growth;" in the other, pollution is seen as a regrettable output that should be reduced when the benefits brought by its production are exceeded by the costs it imposes in externalities like health decrements and loss of ecosystem services.

Deforestation may follow a Kuznets curve (cf. forest transition curve). Among countries with a per capita GDP of at least $4,600, net deforestation has ceased to exist. Yet it has been argued that wealthier countries are able to maintain forests along with high consumption by ‘exporting’ deforestation.

It has also been suggested that the Kuznets curve applies to both littering and cigarette smoking.

grundle 03-21-18 07:08 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
This writer claims that the NOAA has been tampering with its data to make global warming look worse than it really is.

I hope the Washington Post will investigate this claim to either confirm it or debunk it.

Please note that although this is only a blog, the writer does link to official government sources to verify his claims, and I have bolded those links:


https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...g-2-5-degrees/

NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

March 20, 2018

NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...0_05_47_24.png

Raw NOAA Data

Adjusted NOAA Data

Spoiler:

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...0_05_20_11.png

Most of these adjustments are due to simply making up data. Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, and the temperature gets estimated by NOAA using a computer model. Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an “E” – meaning “estimated.” In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing, but that number has increased to almost 50%, meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...1_03_00_27.png

The fabricated temperatures have warmed four degrees since 1970, relative to the adjusted temperatures which were based on actual station data. This shows that the warming trend in the US claimed by NOAA is based on computer models, not actual thermometer data or even adjusted thermometer data.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...1_06_30_19.png

But here is the real smoking gun of fraud by NOAA. The adjustments being made almost perfectly match atmospheric CO2 levels – showing that the data is being altered precisely to match global warming theory.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...1_06_44_59.png

Science doesn’t get any worse than how NOAA handles US temperature data. NASA uses the NOAA data as the basis for their temperature graphs, which have also been massively altered to turn cooling into warming.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...-1999-2017.gif

1999 Version

2017 Version

grundle 03-21-18 07:23 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294587)
Where is plastic more harmful - a landfill or the ocean?


The ocean.

Today's modern landfills are well sealed, and when they get full, they are turned into parks and golf courses. And all of our garbage for the next 1,000 years would fit into a square landfill that's only 35 miles per side. We need to end this nonsense that we're "running out" of landfill space.

In Santa Clarita, California, a government mandated diaper recycling program cost $1,800 per ton, whereas putting those same diapers into a landfill would have cost only $28 per ton. This recylcling clearly wasted more resources than it saved. But it made the environmentalists feel good, and I guess that was the only thing they cared about in this particular case.

Recycling copper and gold is a good idea. I know it's a good idea because there are private companies that offer people money for their gold and copper. If recycling plastic was truly a good idea, companies would offer people money for their used plastic. But government mandated recycling of plastic is a waste of resources. It would be better to put that plastic into a landfill.

I remember several decades ago - before the internet - there was a TV news report about a garbage barge that couldn't find a landfill to put its garbage into. The news media wanted us to think that this was proof that we were running out of landfill space. But I knew something fishy was going on at these news networks, because it was just this one garbage barge that couldn't find a landfill to put its garbage. No other garbage barges were having this problem. So I knew that the real problem had to with this particular barge itself, and not with any actual lack of landfill space. Even way back then, I was able to detect media bias to try to push an agenda.

I live in Pennsylvania. Our state imports more garbage than any other other U.S. state. And we love it, because it provides us with jobs and tax revenue.

Draven 03-21-18 07:31 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Ah, that John Tierney stuff from the 90s again. Here’s some math on landfills:


This means that, in one year, 300 million people, each producing 3.5 pounds of trash per day, create something like 18,433,779,281 cubic feet of trash, which is a lot. If you made the pile 400 feet deep (as tall as a 40-story building), it would cover more than 1,000 acres of land.

If you keep filling up this landfill for 100 years, and if you assume that during this time the populations of the United States doubles, then the landfill will cover about 160,000 acres, or 250 or so square miles, with trash 400 feet deep.
John’s numbers are a bit off.

grundle 03-21-18 08:12 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294604)
Ah, that John Tierney stuff from the 90s again. Here’s some math on landfills:



John’s numbers are a bit off.


My source says it would take a square landfill that was 35 miles per side, in order to store 1,000 years worth of garbage. That's 1,225 square miles,

Your source says it would require 250 square miles for 100 years, which works out to 2,500 square miles for 1,000 years.

If your source is correct, then my source has understated the amount by a factor of two. That is certainly significant.

But even if your source is correct about it being 2,500 square miles, then we still have no legitimate reason to worry about running out of landfill space. And like I said, today's modern landfills are well sealed, and when they are full, we turn them into parks and golf courses.

A landfill is a specialized place for putting stuff that no one wants. I very much support specialization. I support storing garbage in landfills.

I also support the copper and gold industries offering people money for their old copper and gold that they no longer want.

If environmentalists want to start offering people money for their garbage, then I would support that as well. They could advertise on TV, just like those companies that advertise for gold.

But a mandatory diaper recycling program that costs $1,800 per ton in order to prevent them from spending $28 per ton to put those same diapers into a landfill goes completely against everything that the environmentalists claim to stand for. If environmentalists truly cared about saving resources, they would be against this instead of in favor of it.

Draven 03-21-18 08:44 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Do you think transporting garbage every day from NYC to the wilds of Montana is a good solution?

The issue isn’t finding the space for one big landfill - it’s finding the space near major cities that produce most of the trash. Where people leave - people who don’t want to live next to a landfill.

I worked as an assistant contractor for my first job and had to regularly drop off garbage at the town landfill. I hated that job - the smell got in my clothes and nose and hair for days, regardless of how many times I showered. No thanks, I’d rather recycle.

SFX 03-21-18 10:13 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by grundle (Post 13294597)
This writer claims that the NOAA has been tampering with its data to make global warming look worse than it really is.

I hope the Washington Post will investigate this claim to either confirm it or debunk it.

I've run the numbers myself for many years now, and there is no doubt at all that NOAA (and almost every other agency) is messing with good data to present a false image of climate change. BEST is the worst offender. The PRISM group shows a realistic view of actual climate change, and it doesn't match NOAA at all.

It's reaching the point where it's just fraud.

wendersfan 03-21-18 11:15 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by SFX (Post 13294681)
I've run the numbers myself for many years now, and there is no doubt at all that NOAA (and almost every other agency) is messing with good data to present a false image of climate change. BEST is the worst offender. The PRISM group shows a realistic view of actual climate change, and it doesn't match NOAA at all.

It's reaching the point where it's just fraud.

Is that you, Scott Pruitt?

Anyway, back in the real world, here's a clever (and terrifying) interactive page that, based on your zip code, tells you what new diseases are coming your way, courtesy of climate change:

http://therevelator.org/climate-goes-viral/

Nick Danger 03-21-18 11:26 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Some excerpts.


Chevron Will Stick to IPCC Findings in Landmark Climate Change Trial

Oil companies are not questioning climate science, even as they move to dismiss lawsuit

By Anne C. Mulkern, E&E News on March 21, 2018

Oil companies accused of raising ocean levels might not question the existence of climate change in federal court today.

Chevron Corp. is expected to take a lead role in a climate science “tutorial” at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The unusual hearing was required by Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing lawsuits filed by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland claiming that five oil giants are contributing to damages related to climate change.

In the hours before the tutorial, which Alsup is using to gather historical observations about climatic conditions that can go back thousands of years, Chevron said it wouldn’t question the facts around rising temperatures.

“Chevron is not going to be engaging in a debate on climate change science,” said Avi Garbow, co-chairman of the Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort Practice Group at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a Chevron lawyer. He’s also a former official in the Obama administration who defended the Clean Power Plan as general counsel to then-U.S. EPA chief Gina McCarthy.

Chevron said claims that are similar to those filed by San Francisco and Oakland have been dismissed by other courts. Its key argument is that U.S. EPA has oversight over greenhouse gas emissions.

The oil companies have no real choice but to acknowledge climate science, legal experts said.

“They realize that the science behind climate change is so well understood and accepted that it isn’t in their interest to be seen as deniers,” Ann Carlson, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said in an email. “Moreover, their own internal documents and research accept the validity of climate change and for several of them they’ve made public statements acknowledging the human contribution to climate change.”

She added, “They’re really hedging their bets, instead, on the large number of contributors to climate change, the causation questions, the global nature of the problem, and the hope that they can get courts to find that federal common law (at least) displaces nuisance claims.”

On the call with reporters, Chevron attorneys said it’s not possible to pin the cause of warming on a handful of oil companies. The cities in their suits say that the consumption of fossil fuels has created harms, said Joshua Lipshutz, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a Chevron lawyer.

“If that’s the allegation, then really anyone in the world could be brought in in the case, including the plaintiffs themselves,” he said. “San Francisco and Oakland are large consumers of fossil fuels and large emitters of greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-change-trial/

That's why it's so important that Pruitt is the head of the EPA.

Chevron is changing its defense from "human-caused climate change doesn't exist" to "it's all of your faults!"

Nick Danger 03-21-18 11:29 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 
Are you unhappy with the snow storms this year? Here comes the science.


Are Nor’easters and Bomb Cyclones the New Normal?

More data are supporting a once-controversial theory that the warming Arctic is making winter weather more extreme

By Mark Fischetti on March 20, 2018

Are Nor'easters and Bomb Cyclones the New Normal?

In the past three weeks three harsh nor’easter storms have battered the northeastern U.S., bringing the total to five for the winter. A sixth may be forming this week, which is highly unusual. Four of the five storms were bomb cyclones, a legitimate technical term that means the atmospheric pressure within the nascent storms dropped rapidly and radically, causing them to “blow up” into raging beasts.

Scientists have been predicting these very circumstances. And now they have new data showing that the rapidly warming Arctic is at least partly to blame.

Conditions in the Arctic have gone crazy. In late February, for example, temperatures in some locations spiked more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. More than a dozen major climate records have been broken in just the past three years: high winter temperatures, low winter and summer sea ice, extensive thawing of permafrost, and so on. But unlike in Las Vegas,what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. For almost a decade, scientists have been predicting that rapid Arctic warming may disrupt atmospheric circulation patterns, including the infamous polar vortex, that control winter weather all around the northern hemisphere, including the U.S., northern and central Europe, and northern Asia.

Jennifer Francis, an Arctic and weather specialist at Rutgers University, was one of the first scientists to connect these dots. At an American Geophysical Union conference way back in 2011, she presented a hypothesis and preliminary data analysis indicating that a warming Arctic and related climate changes could conspire to alter the jet stream and extreme weather. She explains the phenomenon nicely in an article that Scientific American released today.

We see the jet stream on weather maps all the time: the familiar big wave that rises from the Pacific Ocean north toward Alaska then plunges southward across the mainland U.S. toward the Gulf of Mexico. The new idea is that very wavy jet-stream patterns would occur more often, and those weather-producing waves would move west to east across North America more slowly than usual. When these large waves form they tend to hang around a long time, creating prolonged weather conditions that can lead to droughts, long cold spells, nor’easter after nor’easter and even winter heat waves. Scientific American published graphics in a 2014 article by Jeff Masters at the Weather Underground that show how this would work.

Last week, Francis and two co-authors published a paper in Nature Communicationsthat makes a bold assertion: these linkages are no longer a hypothesis. A growing stack of climate studies conclude that they are happening. The paper, which includes more than 65 years of observations, finds a strong correlation between unusually warm Arctic temperatures and extreme winter weather in the eastern U.S.

In the Northeast, three monster nor’easters in three weeks is certainly extreme. For people on Cape Cod who have been without power for a week, for residents of Boston shore towns whose homes have been wrecked twice by record high tides and waves, for people in interior communities who got two feet snow at once, the streak represents a new normal: storms that are nastier and stick around longer than anyone would like.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...he-new-normal/

maxfisher 03-21-18 11:38 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294604)
Ah, that John Tierney stuff from the 90s again. Here’s some math on landfills:



John’s numbers are a bit off.

You just need to rerun your numbers assuming we’re able to stack the trash six times the height of Everest.

grundle 03-21-18 11:47 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294638)
Do you think transporting garbage every day from NYC to the wilds of Montana is a good solution?


No.

Like I said, I live in Pennsylvania, and we import more garbage than any other U.S. state. And we love it, because it gives us jobs and tax revenue. New York is welcome to ship all of their garbage to our state, as long as they pay us for doing so.



Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294638)
The issue isn’t finding the space for one big landfill - it’s finding the space near major cities that produce most of the trash. Where people leave - people who don’t want to live next to a landfill.


The land in densely populated areas is to expensive for a landfill. That's why landfills are located in other areas. And today's modern landfills are well sealed. If you are just a few miles away, you could drive right by one and never even know it.




Originally Posted by Draven (Post 13294638)
I worked as an assistant contractor for my first job and had to regularly drop off garbage at the town landfill. I hated that job - the smell got in my clothes and nose and hair for days, regardless of how many times I showered. No thanks, I’d rather recycle.


Taking trash to the landfill should only be done by people who specialize in that as their full time job. Such employees are paid high enough wages that the demand for those jobs actually exceeds the supply. Those jobs are highly valued. Not by you and me, but by people with no college education. For a job that doesn't require a college diploma, it pays exceptionally well.

grundle 03-21-18 11:56 AM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 13294720)

Anyway, back in the real world, here's a clever (and terrifying) interactive page that, based on your zip code, tells you what new diseases are coming your way, courtesy of climate change:

http://therevelator.org/climate-goes-viral/


This is what it said for my zip code:

http://therevelator.org/wp-content/u...03/dengue_.png

It's only "terrifying" if you're gullible enough to believe it.

This is precisely why I keep posting the bogus predictions from the first Earth Day. Here they are again:
Spoiler:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27702.html

* Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for the first Earth Day, wrote, “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

* Senator Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, stated, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

* Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, stated, “… by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

* Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death.

* Life Magazine wrote, “… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.”

* Ecologist Kenneth Watt stated, “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

* Watt also stated, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”

grundle 03-21-18 12:05 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Nick Danger (Post 13294731)
Are you unhappy with the snow storms this year? Here comes the science.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...he-new-normal/


In the past, the doomsayers said that global warming would cause there to be less snow.

But now that there is more snow (the exact opposite of what the doomayers had predicited) , the doomsayers are now saying that this increase is caused by global warming climate change.

So no matter what happens regarding the amount of snow, the doomsayers always attribute it to human activity, even when what happens is the exact opposite of what they had predicted.

Here's my take on climate change:

1) Climate change is real.

2) Climate change has been happening for 4.5 billion years.

3 There is nothing we can do to stop the climate from changing.

grundle 03-21-18 12:11 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by maxfisher (Post 13294737)
You just need to rerun your numbers assuming we’re able to stack the trash six times the height of Everest.


No. Even if my source was wrong as was claimed, it was only by a factor of two. That's a significant error, but it still doesn't mean there's any reason to worry about running out of landfill space. And even if we doubled the height of the landfill from my source, it still wouldn't be anywhere close to the height of Mt. Everest.

I will add that in the future, I think artificially intelligent robots will mine landfills as a valuable resource. And that's a lot better then the current situation of making humans separate their trash, having two sets of trucks to pick it up instead of one, and paying employees at the recycling center to go though the stuff by hand. People's time is far more valuable than any other resource that's being discussed in this area, and we should stop wasting it by forcing people to recycle their garbage.

SFX 03-21-18 12:35 PM

Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit
 

Originally Posted by Nick Danger (Post 13294731)
Are you unhappy with the snow storms this year? Here comes the science.


Scientists have been predicting these very circumstances.
Utter nonsense.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.