Nova: Decoding the Weather Machine

[homersapien 11,352]

Anthropogenic global warming hasn't been brought up in a while, but assuming there are still doubters - if not deniers - in our midst, I highly recommend they watch the following 2 hour Nova presentation.  It presents a good comprehensive review of the science. 

And if you are going to oppose the science, you should at least understand what you are opposing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/decoding-weather-machine.html

 

[keoson7 28]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Anthropogenic global warming hasn't been brought up in a while, but assuming there are still doubters - if not deniers - in our midst, I highly recommend they watch the following 2 hour Nova presentation.  It presents a good comprehensive review of the science. 

And if you are going to oppose the science, you should at least understand what you are opposing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/decoding-weather-machine.html

 

the Ice Caps are melted right, it's a given,, they would be by now....said,  Al Gore... But my father, who taught at AU, told me this, back when the global warming hysteria was first occurring." Well of course it is, it has been happening  since the Ice Age".... that was all I needed to know about that...

[homersapien 11,352]

9 minutes ago, keoson7 said:

the Ice Caps are melted right, it's a given,, they would be by now....said,  Al Gore... But my father, who taught at AU, told me this, back when the global warming hysteria was first occurring." Well of course it is, it has been happening  since the Ice Age".... that was all I needed to know about that...

Thanks for representating the "denier" side of the argument. 

I was starting to wonder if there were any still active on the forum.

[keoson7 28]

it is a natural cycle, against a group that pushes falsified results to further their agenda and is consistently proved f o s...but Al got richer? right?

[AUDub 11,131]

Oh lawd. 

10 minutes ago, keoson7 said:

it is a natural cycle, against a group that pushes falsified results to further their agenda and is consistently proved f o s...but Al got richer? right?

 

[AUDub 11,131]

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Thanks for representating the "denier" side of the argument. 

I was starting to wonder if there were any still active on the forum.

Yeah it’s been a while since we’ve had a discussion on it. 

[homersapien 11,352]

21 minutes ago, keoson7 said:

it is a natural cycle, against a group that pushes falsified results to further their agenda and is consistently proved f o s...but Al got richer? right?

Nope. 

Watch the program.  It's designed for the "layman" (to put it politely).

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nope. 

Watch the program.  It's designed for the "layman" (to put it politely).

What happens when we "deniers/doubters" become certified believers?

[homersapien 11,352]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

What happens when we "deniers/doubters" become certified believers?

Action.  Hopefully.  

But a lot of change is already baked-in.  Catastrophic change is still in play. 

Sounds like you are starting to come around.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Action.  Hopefully.

Sounds like you are starting to come around.

Action like what?

[homersapien 11,352]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Action like what?

Get real. 

Grow up and look for yourself.  I've got better things to do than spoon feed you information.

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Get real. 

Grow up and look for yourself.  I've got better things to do than spoon feed you information.

Don't tell me grow up. Common sense tells us it wise to reduce carbon emissions. Common sense also tells us that hurricanes.... have always been a part of nature and always will be. I asked what would happen if we accepted your religion. doubters/deniers. 

[homersapien 11,352]

27 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Don't tell me grow up. Common sense tells us it wise to reduce carbon emissions. Common sense also tells us that hurricanes.... have always been a part of nature and always will be. I asked what would happen if we accepted your religion. doubters/deniers. 

That's a nice string of non sequiturs.

[keoson7 28]

manbearpig will get you, be very careful

 

[homersapien 11,352]

On 4/20/2018 at 10:28 PM, SaltyTiger said:

Don't tell me grow up. Common sense tells us it wise to reduce carbon emissions. Common sense also tells us that hurricanes.... have always been a part of nature and always will be. I asked what would happen if we accepted your religion. doubters/deniers. 

And I told you. 

You then went on to ask what sort of action could we take, as if you really have no idea.  That's disingenuous.

Secondly no one has claimed that AGW is responsible for hurricanes.  What AGW is responsible for increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes.  So that statement was also "disingenuous".  

And based on the "religion" comment, you are obviously still a long way from waking up on this. 

Note: This post was edited heavily to conform with forum rules. 

[keoson7 28]

so basically what homosapien is saying is, "my point of view is the only viewpoint, allowed,  wake up to the reality, that science has created for you to believe.". is that close homey??

[HVAU 673]

I'm going to leave a few things laying about.  If you care to look, do so.  

Species Extinction: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

NASA Sea Level Data:https://sealevel.nasa.gov

Corral Reef Discussion:https://www.icriforum.org/about-coral-reefs/status-and-threat-coral-reefs

Trends in Global Temperature:https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Major Aquifer Conditions: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4626

"so basically what homosapien is saying is, "my point of view is the only viewpoint, allowed,  wake up to the reality, thoat science has created for you to believe.". is that close homey??"

Your sarcastic reply is the stance that many on the right have taken.  It is the denial of appeal to authority, i.e. the attitude that if you can not demonstrate a fact without relying on scientific data that you had no direct relationship to, I don't need to respect your position.  It goes hand in hand with the Surkov strategy for controlling truth, by diminishing the ability of a populace to discern factual data from fictional data , employed by Putin in Russia.

In the end, I would rather proceed with a bias that favors those that are experts in their field, that publish in a peer reviewed manner and have minimal political or corporate influence over their research.  

What can be done to halt or reverse the damage to the environment?  I don't know, but given that study after study, excepting the occasional outlier that receives frequent trumpeting by climate change deniers, shows that we are approaching periods of unsustainability at an accelerated pace, I'm fairly certain the answer isn't to continue as if everything is rosy.

 

[keoson7 28]

We all  know the oil industry and their complete control and destruction of clean enrgy technology, is the root of the problem, but the same politicians crying for change are the ones enabling the continued destruction of the environm,ent. by the corporations that own them.. so actually, DC is the main problem and unless their sh!t show is shut down, the status quo rolls on in high gear.. envirnment be damned.. So watching a weather show about it, is just pretending to care..

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 4/20/2018 at 9:17 PM, SaltyTiger said:

Action like what?

Somehow we protest the oil and gas industry out of America. Then we phase out the use of natural gas slowly (who cares if that means doing business with countries who want to cut our heads off and make us pay over $100/barrel?). The economy will go to s*** because we don’t know what can supplant natural gas in the market, but hey, Trump is President. We can just blame him (like always) for all of the insurmountable collateral that us environmental activists are ignorant of.

[HVAU 673]

23 minutes ago, keoson7 said:

We all  know the oil industry and their complete control and destruction of clean enrgy technology, is the root of the problem, but the same politicians crying for change are the ones enabling the continued destruction of the environm,ent. by the corporations that own them.. so actually, DC is the main problem and unless their sh!t show is shut down, the status quo rolls on in high gear.. envirnment be damned.. So watching a weather show about it, is just pretending to care..

The oil industry placing obstacles to environmentally friendly technology, through lobbying, is most likely a problem.  There are plenty of DC politicians on the take.  In my opinion a step in the right direction is electing politicians that support clean energy initiatives and are ardent opponents of Citizen's United.  

Your comment about shutting DC down is a bit revolutionary for my taste.

[keoson7 28]

19 minutes ago, HVAU said:

The oil industry placing obstacles to environmentally friendly technology, through lobbying, is most likely a problem.  There are plenty of DC politicians on the take.  In my opinion a step in the right direction is electing politicians that support clean energy initiatives and are ardent opponents of Citizen's United.  

Your comment about shutting DC down is a bit revolutionary for my taste.

but the only interests being served in DC are for their corporate masters, and they wont give up their power voluntarily, so there is that..

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

30 minutes ago, HVAU said:

The oil industry placing obstacles to environmentally friendly technology, through lobbying, is most likely a problem.  There are plenty of DC politicians on the take.  In my opinion a step in the right direction is electing politicians that support clean energy initiatives and are ardent opponents of Citizen's United.  

Your comment about shutting DC down is a bit revolutionary for my taste.

What kind of environmenal technology? 

Also, I’m all for clean energy initiatives, but they have to be achievable, reliable, and feasible. A legitimate concern (that any reasonable person can agree with) is supplanting natural gas in the market. Obviously, if it ever happens, it will take several years.

If there is “something” equivalent to what natural gas was for coal, then by all means. Right now, there is not. I don’t deny climate change (which is different than global warming) but it truly saddens me that so many of my counterparts stringently oppose natural gas extraction, despite its benefits that clearly outweigh current alternatives.

I guess I’m an odd ball...

[HVAU 673]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What kind of environmenal technology? 

Also, I’m all for clean energy initiatives, but they have to be achievable, reliable, and feasible. A legitimate concern (that any reasonable person can agree with) is supplanting natural gas in the market. Obviously, if it ever happens, it will take several years.

If there is “something” equivalent to what natural gas was for coal, then by all means. Right now, there is not. I don’t deny climate change (which is different than global warming) but it truly saddens me that so many of my counterparts stringently oppose natural gas extraction, despite its benefits that clearly outweigh current alternatives.

I guess I’m an odd ball...

So we agree, there is an environmental issue that needs to be assessed and, hopefully, addressed.  That's a start.  

Natural gas extraction is not going away anytime soon, and considering the world energy needs it shouldn't go away.  However, if technologies can be developed that reduce reliance on oil and gas, and are more environmentally sound, well, they should be developed and employed.

I'm not aware of all of the technologies available that could reduce dependence on fossil fuels.  I know of the standard methods (solar, geothermal, wind) and a handful of experimental methods (the Colorado School of Mines along with other research Universities had an interesting technology involving methane producing algae).  A friend of mine works in modular nuclear power facilities, which, despite the stigma, is an intriguing alternative to fossil fuels.

Bottom line, I don't know everything, but ignoring the issue because I don't know the solution would reflect poorly on our my character.  Appointing people to oversee environmental departments who have actively sought to undermine those departments on the behalf of corporate lobbyists reflects poorly on Trump's character or judgement.  Not attempting to be an influential leader in the global discussions aimed at solving these issues reflects poorly on our national character.

A return to bipartisan problem solving would be great.  We can agree on the facts, then work from there from our different philosophical positions.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, HVAU said:

So we agree, there is an environmental issue that needs to be assessed and, hopefully, addressed.  That's a start.  

Natural gas extraction is not going away anytime soon, and considering the world energy needs it shouldn't go away.  However, if technologies can be developed that reduce reliance on oil and gas, and are more environmentally sound, well, they should be developed and employed.

I'm not aware of all of the technologies available that could reduce dependence on fossil fuels.  I know of the standard methods (solar, geothermal, wind) and a handful of experimental methods (the Colorado School of Mines along with other research Universities had an interesting technology involving methane producing algae).  A friend of mine works in modular nuclear power facilities, which, despite the stigma, is an intriguing alternative to fossil fuels.

Bottom line, I don't know everything, but ignoring the issue because I don't know the solution would reflect poorly on our my character.  Appointing people to oversee environmental departments who have actively sought to undermine those departments on the behalf of corporate lobbyists reflects poorly on Trump's character or judgement.  Not attempting to be an influential leader in the global discussions aimed at solving these issues reflects poorly on our national character.

A return to bipartisan problem solving would be great.  We can agree on the facts, then work from there from our different philosophical positions.

 

I appreciate the response. There’s always two extreme ends - proponents on both sides must learn to meet in the middle.

Are you familiar with carbon capture? I would be all for it, but-for its cost. 

[HVAU 673]

54 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I appreciate the response. There’s always two extreme ends - proponents on both sides must learn to meet in the middle.

Are you familiar with carbon capture? I would be all for it, but-for its cost. 

 I've heard the term and seen some architecture that supposedly employs carbon capture technology, but I can't say I know much about it.  Through study and development that technology may possibly reach affordability.  Look at the price and technology revolutions in the consumer electronics market over the past 30 years.

 

As far as I know, the best carbon sinks are deciduous forests.  Better construction practice is something that I'm all for, especially when I see some of the neighborhoods going up in Madison county.