Climate change

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,862
5,625
113
Northeast SD
I do not doubt that there is more than enough information out there to support the global warming stance.just as there was 20 years ago when scientists had much of the population convinced that by now coastal cities would be in ruins from risen sea levels.
Well, after being convinced that the sky is falling only to learn that these highly educated scientists were WRONG, I think that we are all better off using our own brains. My brain tells me that weather is cyclical and events are random.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't make continual efforts to clean up our lifestyles.
But to sabatoge our economy so we can have a warm fuzzy feeling about living a "green" lifestyle is beyond foolish.
 

black z

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 2, 2014
444
246
43
MN
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

We are in a Solar minimum. The main source of man made carbon emissions come from paved areas in the world. Less than 1% of the world is paved. This is all you need to know from a mathematical standpoint that human carbon emissions are not the problem. Solar activity, and man made water diversion, along with our population/consumption is the reason for extreme weather events. Consumption-Filtration/Evaporation-Precipitation

I'm not against environmental regulations, but they should not cripple industries to virtue signal. Tier 4 emissions absolutely destroyed the reliability and efficiency of semi trucks, and agricultural equipment. Until China and India are reigned in most causes are basically hopeless, on a global scale. I'd love to see the environmental impact of the DEF industry, how many million 2.5 gallon jugs of DEF are tossed into landfills each year, and that's just the beginning of it. What a ****ing joke
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,157
801
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

We are in a Solar minimum. The main source of man made carbon emissions come from paved areas in the world. Less than 1% of the world is paved. This is all you need to know from a mathematical standpoint that human carbon emissions are not the problem. Solar activity, and man made water diversion, along with our population/consumption is the reason for extreme weather events. Consumption-Filtration/Evaporation-Precipitation

I'm not against environmental regulations, but they should not cripple industries to virtue signal. Tier 4 emissions absolutely destroyed the reliability and efficiency of semi trucks, and agricultural equipment. Until China and India are reigned in most causes are basically hopeless, on a global scale. I'd love to see the environmental impact of the DEF industry, how many million 2.5 gallon jugs of DEF are tossed into landfills each year, and that's just the beginning of it. What a ****ing joke
Solar minimum means what in this context? Basically that given only natural factors, we would be cooling. 18 of the 19 hottest years on record are since 2001. (the 19th is 1998.)
If you're going to trust NASA on one thing, how about this one?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You're not as good at math as you think, apparently. India produces less CO2 emissions than we do total, and much less per person. (Yes, they need to control theirs too, but your attitude will have us doing nothing unless everyone else does, and as long as there are people like you in those countries too, they will do nothing unless we do. So everyone ends up doing nothing.)

The only countries that produce more CO2 per person than we do are Saudi Arabia, and Australia.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

The 1% (really even less than that) of surface area being paved really doesn't matter, it's what you do with that area.

We are producing 5 Billion metric tons of CO2 every year, just in the US, and roughly 40 billion for the world. That increases the CO2 concentration by ~2ppm each year.

From 2000 to 2010, that increased the CO2 concentration from ~370 ppm to ~390 ppm or ~5%. You'd notice a 5% increase in power in your sled, wouldn't you? It's noticeable.
 

Skidoox

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 4, 2001
2,074
1,087
113
Provo, UT

Jean-Luc Picard

Well-known member
Premium Member
Aug 25, 2017
941
789
93
Blackfoot, Idaho
www.bennyfifeaudio.com
And Doctors used to recommend smoking. Western thought was once that the world is flat. So approach anything with skepticism, I get it. But scientists today have a glut more data to deal with & draw conclusions from. To discount it out of hand as all propaganda is naive. To accept it at face value to me is also naive. To me, it at least warrants grabbing the low-hanging fruit to try to make a difference. Those solutions that don't crush an industry, or burden one nation far above another. To completely ignore it is akin to the folks who don't evacuate for hurricanes/fires/floods. "This is where I've always lived & this is where I'm gonna die." The problem is, by being completely unwilling to consider if it might be accurate, you are burdening your children, grand children and so on to a problem you are not willing to face, instead of just your own life on the line. The Green New Deal is not the way to go. But maybe some decent incentives for companies to reduce their carbon footprint? Just a thought.
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,157
801
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Sorry, no pithy videos, just more reading.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Mainstream Media
What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions
Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:

and for the other,
https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

There are people out there that understand these statistics. Learn the math and check them yourself if you'd like.
 

black z

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 2, 2014
444
246
43
MN
Solar minimum means what in this context? Basically that given only natural factors, we would be cooling. 18 of the 19 hottest years on record are since 2001. (the 19th is 1998.)
If you're going to trust NASA on one thing, how about this one?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You're not as good at math as you think, apparently. India produces less CO2 emissions than we do total, and much less per person. (Yes, they need to control theirs too, but your attitude will have us doing nothing unless everyone else does, and as long as there are people like you in those countries too, they will do nothing unless we do. So everyone ends up doing nothing.)

The only countries that produce more CO2 per person than we do are Saudi Arabia, and Australia.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

The 1% (really even less than that) of surface area being paved really doesn't matter, it's what you do with that area.

We are producing 5 Billion metric tons of CO2 every year, just in the US, and roughly 40 billion for the world. That increases the CO2 concentration by ~2ppm each year.

From 2000 to 2010, that increased the CO2 concentration from ~370 ppm to ~390 ppm or ~5%. You'd notice a 5% increase in power in your sled, wouldn't you? It's noticeable.
I am confident with my math, I'm published in SAE papers and I know how studies go, usually toward the intended outcome of the organization funding it. How long has the earth been around? How long have we had "accurate" instrumentation to actually collect data that you like to cherry pick? Co2 per capita? :face-icon-small-con completely asinine. The fact that the only thing you look at is Co2 is all I need to know. Look at the waters of China and India. If you really think that man made Co2 emissions are the end of us all, and the USA is the only place to stop it. You are extremely delusional, and arrogant of the human race's power, relative to the forces of nature
 

Idcatman3

MODERATOR: Premium Member
Staff member
Nov 26, 2007
2,157
801
113
35
Idaho Falls, Idaho
I am confident with my math, I'm published in SAE papers and I know how studies go, usually toward the intended outcome of the organization funding it. How long has the earth been around? How long have we had "accurate" instrumentation to actually collect data that you like to cherry pick? Co2 per capita? :face-icon-small-con completely asinine. The fact that the only thing you look at is Co2 is all I need to know. Look at the waters of China and India. If you really think that man made Co2 emissions are the end of us all, and the USA is the only place to stop it. You are extremely delusional, and arrogant of the human race's power, relative to the forces of nature
You were talking CO2, so I only did CO2. I'm not wasting more of my time than that. I focus on the US because I (and many of us here) live in the US. I have no delusions of my actions changing anything in India or China. I live here, so I focus here.

I don't understand how another engineer can be so ignorant of statistics.

You dismiss humans far too easily, and totally went with an ad hominim attack instead of telling me how a 5% CO2 increase is supposed to be negligible.

I'm glad you know better than all those people working on this problem. Publish your climate paper and make your millions.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,862
5,625
113
Northeast SD
The whole premise that CO2 is bad is merely fake science.

Plant life need CO2 & in turn, convert it into oxygen.
Every breath every living creature exhales contains CO2. Perhaps we need to kill everyone and every animal to make us safer?
That's how absurd this all is.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,862
5,625
113
Northeast SD
We should reach thawing temps today!
The last time we were at or above 32 degrees was January 8.
Yep 63 days! Nearly unprecedented around here.
Boy, how about that global warming? Lol!
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,862
5,625
113
Northeast SD
If you guys want, there's plenty of room on the right side of this issue.
You are welcome to come on over!
 

Slick

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
1,192
1,025
113
You were talking CO2, so I only did CO2. I'm not wasting more of my time than that. I focus on the US because I (and many of us here) live in the US. I have no delusions of my actions changing anything in India or China. I live here, so I focus here.

I don't understand how another engineer can be so ignorant of statistics.

You dismiss humans far too easily, and totally went with an ad hominim attack instead of telling me how a 5% CO2 increase is supposed to be negligible.

I'm glad you know better than all those people working on this problem. Publish your climate paper and make your millions.



Publish your paper you suggest , and make your millions. So you are aware of the motivation for many Researchers, and junk scientists.
Me , I prefer he makes a video.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,862
5,625
113
Northeast SD
Have you considered that the good Lord may have a hand in weather events?
I do, and I predict that as the world becomes more evil and corrupt we will see more catastrophic events. Particularly relating to the escalation in the murder of unborn and newborn children, his children. Consider the rage you feel if someone hurts your children, why wouldn't our Father send signs to make it clear we need to repent and change our ways.
I know some of you will scoff at this notion. I also know some of you are afraid that I may be correct.
 
Last edited:
Premium Features