Obama Administration Takes Action on Climate Change--Big Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ChrisOlson
    Solar Fanatic
    • Sep 2013
    • 630

    And another thing on volcanoes. The Unites States has what is probably the most powerful and dangerous supervolcano on earth right smack dab in the middle of the whole outfit. It is called the Yellowstone Caldera. How many of you have visited this place? I have, several times. And it scares the livin' crap out of me every time I have been there. There is no other place on earth where big lakes of water are boiling, steam is coming out of the ground all over the place from vents, and the air quality is so poor in some low areas that no air-breathing organisms can survive there.

    It is not a matter of if this thing is going to blow again someday. It's when. And when it does, the chances of the human race surviving it are very, very slim. What is man, in all his smartness, going to do about that one?

    If you don't know about it, I would suggest reading about it starting here. And keep in mind that the human race in its entirety does not posses any type of device, including nuclear weapons, that have enough power to blow 240 cubic miles of rock into the upper atmopshere:

    The last full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolcano, the Lava Creek eruption which happened nearly 640,000 years ago,[24] ejected approximately 240 cubic miles (1,000 km3) of rock, dust and volcanic ash into the sky.[14]

    Geologists are closely monitoring the rise and fall of the Yellowstone Plateau, which measures on average 0.6 inches (1.5 cm) yearly, as an indication of changes in magma chamber pressure.[25][26]

    The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor between 2004 and 2008 — almost 3 inches (7.6 cm) each year — was more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[27] From mid-summer 2004 through mid-summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera moved upward as much as 8 inches (20 cm) at the White Lake GPS station.[28][29] By the end of 2009, the uplift had slowed significantly and appeared to have stopped.[30] In January 2010, the USGS stated that "uplift of the Yellowstone Caldera has slowed significantly"[31] and that uplift continues but at a slower pace.[32] The U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory maintain that they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable."[14] This conclusion was reiterated in December 2013 in the aftermath of the publication of a study by University of Utah scientists finding that the "size of the magma body beneath Yellowstone is significantly larger than had been thought."


    off-grid in Northern Wisconsin for 14 years

    Comment

    • russ
      Solar Fanatic
      • Jul 2009
      • 10360

      Originally posted by Ward L
      I was quoting NASA and gave you the link when I said 97% of scientists think climate change is man made. OK, so you don't believe NASA. Who do you believe? There are plenty of talking heads that say the 97% is not a good number to quote. Whatever, believe what you want to believe. I think it is pretty ironic to have this discussion on a solar energy forum. I would have guessed if you have solar panels you were pretty green.....
      Ward - You want to believe half baked BS it is fine with us - just realize that statements like 97% only mean that you ask the target audience in a specific manner.

      Green is really a bunch of bull - to do things just because they are "green" borders on insanity.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      Comment

      • Rdjntx
        Solar Fanatic
        • Jul 2012
        • 195

        Originally posted by Ward L
        I was quoting NASA and gave you the link when I said 97% of scientists think climate change is man made. OK, so you don't believe NASA. Who do you believe? There are plenty of talking heads that say the 97% is not a good number to quote. Whatever, believe what you want to believe. I think it is pretty ironic to have this discussion on a solar energy forum. I would have guessed if you have solar panels you were pretty green.....
        but 97% of scientists is a statistic mis quoted and used for the benefit of the shills. it i97% of the so called climate scientists that responded to a survey. and IIRC the number of responders vs. the number of surveys sent out was ridiculously low.

        here is something for you warmists to chew on. yes it's from the Daily Caller but there are links to everything so they didn't just pull this out of their ass…



        "The absence of warming is another area of climate science that sparks debate. In fact, McKitrick’s study is not the first to point out the inconsistencies between modeled and observed temperatures. In 2006, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report found there was a “potentially serious inconsistency” in the modeling of tropospheric warming."

        “What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature — inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure,” wrote John Christy, climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

        “This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous,” Christy added. “This performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics.”

        Comment

        • ChrisOlson
          Solar Fanatic
          • Sep 2013
          • 630

          Originally posted by russ
          Green is really a bunch of bull - to do things just because they are "green" borders on insanity.
          Agreed. In the end, "green energy" is a pipe dream. It is not possible on a large scale unless consumers are willing to foot the bill for it. Most like to brag it up, but when it comes to actually paying for it, it's another story. If you want to "go green" and do your part, park your car and start riding your bicycle. If everybody did that, that one simple change would do far more than all the solar panels on earth. But I'll bet you a $10 dollar bill that the "greenies" who preach man-made global warming are still driving their cars around, puking out CO2 all over the place.
          off-grid in Northern Wisconsin for 14 years

          Comment

          • russ
            Solar Fanatic
            • Jul 2009
            • 10360

            Originally posted by ChrisOlson
            are still driving their cars around, puking out CO2 all over the place.
            By themselves in the HOV lane in CA.
            [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

            Comment

            • russ
              Solar Fanatic
              • Jul 2009
              • 10360

              Originally posted by Rdjntx
              “This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous,” Christy added. “This performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics.”
              Seems Christy may be an honest fellow - unlike the parrots that follow along behind. There is no way anyone is going to get something so complex as climate right for some time to come!
              [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

              Comment

              • ChrisOlson
                Solar Fanatic
                • Sep 2013
                • 630

                Originally posted by russ
                By themselves in the HOV lane in CA.
                Reverend ALGOR and his disciple The Obamination are the worst violators of all:
                off-grid in Northern Wisconsin for 14 years

                Comment

                • MikeSolar
                  Solar Fanatic
                  • May 2012
                  • 252

                  Guys, I haven't see a single argument on this whole thread that supports the notion that we are having no effect on the planet. There are a few point that are missed here.

                  1] Since day 1, scientists who were warning about man made climate change were laughed at by govt and industry. Govt doesn't want change, why would they? Everyone wants the status quo and if that is changing, people get nervous. They may not recognize it as such but it is and this leads to climate deniers as well as moves to the right religiously. It is fear of the unknown.

                  2] IF you understand what a university is, you will know that it is a place of independent thought (or was supposed to be, before they started going corporate). Most scientists work in universities and feel free to look up their salaries, they are usually not as high as private sector types and they don't have an agenda. If they did, they would be dis-credited I know because my wife is a scientist (not in climate change) and the biggest worry she has is trying keep the studies she does neutral.......no bias. Business (in her case pharma) tries everything it can to push its agenda. There is 1000s of times more money in the status quo carbon companies than in the renewables industries and carbon has the big profits to spend. Follow the money.

                  3] Remember smoking and cancer? Even doctors pushed smokes in the 50s but over time the science came in and they couldn't deny it anymore. That is happening here and as much as you want to deny it, and as much as the Koch Brothers fund MOST of the sites that climate deniers use as sources, that real science is becoming more solid.

                  4] Yes, the ice is melting, faster than ever before and yes, there is co2 core samples going back at least 2000 years from many places around the globe showing the rate of CO2 is the highest it has ever been.

                  5] This is really important.......who (govt or business) in their right mind would decide that they will try to change entire worlds opinion on climate change just to sell their widgets? And...what govt benefits from all this upheaval anyway. None of them. Economics 101 says, keep a steady, stable economy and you make the most money. This is why the carbon businesses (and early on the govts) laughed at the scientists.

                  So continue to stick your collective heads in the sand while the world changes around you. Cancers are up, asthma is up, diabetes is way up, respiratory aliments of all types are up. The sooner we accept some blame, the sooner we can turn this boat around. (oh yea, did I mention an almost 8b population an a planet built for 2b?)

                  Comment

                  • Rdjntx
                    Solar Fanatic
                    • Jul 2012
                    • 195

                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    Guys, I haven't see a single argument on this whole thread that supports the notion that we are having no effect on the planet. There are a few point that are missed here.
                    you haven't seen it because no one is saying it. obviously you either haven't read the thread or haven't comprehended what you have read. NO ONE is saying that humans don't contribute to climate change. Those of use who argue agaisnt the warmists are saying that the science has not evolved enought to be definitive on HOW MUCH is human caused, and HOW MUCH is due to the earths natural cyclical rhythm.
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    1] Since day 1, scientists who were warning about man made climate change were laughed at by govt and industry. Govt doesn't want change, why would they? Everyone wants the status quo and if that is changing, people get nervous. They may not recognize it as such but it is and this leads to climate deniers as well as moves to the right religiously. It is fear of the unknown.
                    This is a BS argument. Scientists in the 1970s said mankind would be doomed by the year 2000. I posted a NYT article about it earlier in the thread. Science is always changing as knowledge is gained and a better understanding is gained on how things work. Climate science is horribly inept even after 40 years. as the other article I posted stated that the current models are so far off as to be essentially useless. Since climate scientists use those very inaccurate models for their predicitons it is pretty obvious there are flaws in the science.
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    2] IF you understand what a university is, you will know that it is a place of independent thought (or was supposed to be, before they started going corporate). Most scientists work in universities and feel free to look up their salaries, they are usually not as high as private sector types and they don't have an agenda. If they did, they would be dis-credited I know because my wife is a scientist (not in climate change) and the biggest worry she has is trying keep the studies she does neutral.......no bias. Business (in her case pharma) tries everything it can to push its agenda. There is 1000s of times more money in the status quo carbon companies than in the renewables industries and carbon has the big profits to spend. Follow the money.
                    universities have not been unbiased houses of independant thought since the 60s. don't know how old you are but you are certainly naieve on this point.
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    3] Remember smoking and cancer? Even doctors pushed smokes in the 50s but over time the science came in and they couldn't deny it anymore. That is happening here and as much as you want to deny it, and as much as the Koch Brothers fund MOST of the sites that climate deniers use as sources, that real science is becoming more solid.
                    he Koch Conspiracy, pure comedic gold since there are absolutely ZERO rich people in the liberal poo pile with money doing the same thing.
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    4] Yes, the ice is melting, faster than ever before and yes, there is co2 core samples going back at least 2000 years from many places around the globe showing the rate of CO2 is the highest it has ever been.
                    ok ... who is arguing that it's not?
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    5] This is really important.......who (govt or business) in their right mind would decide that they will try to change entire worlds opinion on climate change just to sell their widgets? And...what govt benefits from all this upheaval anyway. None of them. Economics 101 says, keep a steady, stable economy and you make the most money. This is why the carbon businesses (and early on the govts) laughed at the scientists.
                    just a note .. when you retype an entire paragraph .. it helps to proof read it.
                    Originally posted by MikeSolar
                    So continue to stick your collective heads in the sand while the world changes around you. Cancers are up, asthma is up, diabetes is way up, respiratory aliments of all types are up. The sooner we accept some blame, the sooner we can turn this boat around. (oh yea, did I mention an almost 8b population an a planet built for 2b?)
                    and little if any of this has **** to do with climate change. don't think we are the ones with our head in the sand sport

                    Comment

                    • MikeSolar
                      Solar Fanatic
                      • May 2012
                      • 252

                      Originally posted by Rdjntx
                      you haven't seen it because no one is saying it. obviously you either haven't read the thread or haven't comprehended what you have read. NO ONE is saying that humans don't contribute to climate change. Those of use who argue agaisnt the warmists are saying that the science has not evolved enought to be definitive on HOW MUCH is human caused, and HOW MUCH is due to the earths natural cyclical rhythm.
                      This is a BS argument. Scientists in the 1970s said mankind would be doomed by the year 2000. I posted a NYT article about it earlier in the thread. Science is always changing as knowledge is gained and a better understanding is gained on how things work. Climate science is horribly inept even after 40 years. as the other article I posted stated that the current models are so far off as to be essentially useless. Since climate scientists use those very inaccurate models for their predicitons it is pretty obvious there are flaws in the science.
                      universities have not been unbiased houses of independant thought since the 60s. don't know how old you are but you are certainly naieve on this point.
                      he Koch Conspiracy, pure comedic gold since there are absolutely ZERO rich people in the liberal poo pile with money doing the same thing.
                      ok ... who is arguing that it's not?
                      just a note .. when you retype an entire paragraph .. it helps to proof read it.
                      and little if any of this has **** to do with climate change. don't think we are the ones with our head in the sand sport
                      OK, and it seems you did not get my argument either. Just so you know where I am coming from, I'm 50 years old, not neophyte and read a hell of a lot from all sources. That said, I DO look at the sources and have a pretty good understanding of the politics of money. The Koch "conspiracy" as you call it is not a conspiracy at all. It is not hard to dig into these things and it is also not hard to understand that if your empire is under some attack, you fight back. There are attacks on legislation all over the US and Canada too, some subtle and some quite overt. Arizona and Ohio come to mind right away.

                      Maybe you haven't been around universities much then. Science makes a theory and it can either be proven or diss proven. If it is not dis proven, it is still a valid theory. And, when 95% of studies support the theory, there is a very high chance that it is correct. NO scientist will deny that the theory could be dis proven and a good one will always integrate new info into the old method. This has always been the way. So, just because it is not accurate does not mean the trend is not correct.

                      I have always tried to keep personal attacks out of my arguments (and I'm not on HVACTalk much anymore simply because many there cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks) but maybe when they have no real argument, those attacks must follow. Oh well, so be it.

                      And, this is not a liberal vs conservative debate. The boundaries are blurred on this issue.

                      Comment

                      • Rdjntx
                        Solar Fanatic
                        • Jul 2012
                        • 195

                        it is more of a liberal / conservative debate that you think. look at the politics of it and who is arguing what. MOST (not all of the time) it is liberals who are all up in arms over climate change and conservatives are rabidly anti-climate change. I am more of a centerist / realist and realists do not deny that climate change is happening. we take issue with the warmist dogma that it is all man's fault. how much man is actually contributing is a very debatable point.

                        and I will stand by my comment that universities have not been houses of independant thought since the 60s. congratulations to your wife for working to keep her papers unbiased. the same cannot be said for all scientists and certainly cannot be said for universities. The bias in professors, researchers, and admisitration is obvious, many times political and certainly tied to who donates.

                        the last article I posted quoted a climate change scientist. HE says the science is flawed, the models are inaccurate and there is a LOT of work to be done before we even begin to understand climate change and what the real effect man has on it. When you have as much disagreement over the science among the very scientists that study the problem, hooking your wagon to the shills on either side of the debats is less than intelligent IMHO.

                        Originally posted by MikeSolar
                        OK, and it seems you did not get my argument either. Just so you know where I am coming from, I'm 50 years old, not neophyte and read a hell of a lot from all sources. That said, I DO look at the sources and have a pretty good understanding of the politics of money. The Koch "conspiracy" as you call it is not a conspiracy at all. It is not hard to dig into these things and it is also not hard to understand that if your empire is under some attack, you fight back. There are attacks on legislation all over the US and Canada too, some subtle and some quite overt. Arizona and Ohio come to mind right away.

                        Maybe you haven't been around universities much then. Science makes a theory and it can either be proven or diss proven. If it is not dis proven, it is still a valid theory. And, when 95% of studies support the theory, there is a very high chance that it is correct. NO scientist will deny that the theory could be dis proven and a good one will always integrate new info into the old method. This has always been the way. So, just because it is not accurate does not mean the trend is not correct.

                        I have always tried to keep personal attacks out of my arguments (and I'm not on HVACTalk much anymore simply because many there cannot have a discussion without making personal attacks) but maybe when they have no real argument, those attacks must follow. Oh well, so be it.

                        And, this is not a liberal vs conservative debate. The boundaries are blurred on this issue.

                        Comment

                        • MikeSolar
                          Solar Fanatic
                          • May 2012
                          • 252

                          It's interesting. Here in Canada we have a Prime minister who is probably the most conservative we have ever had. He has fired the vast majority of the scientists in almost all departments. He did this because the he would make a statement about something and the scientists would come out and say .....ummm, sorry, wrong sir.

                          He doesn't believe in science because it gets in the way of his agenda. Traditionally, liberals (read... centrist) do a billion studies, decide on the process and make a policy about it. The farther left or right you go, the more ideology dictates what the policy says.

                          Politics seldom agree with the science but usually agrees with the money. It agrees with science only when it becomes overwhelming clear, not before. Governments don't want to get it wrong and lose the next election.

                          Comment

                          • inetdog
                            Super Moderator
                            • May 2012
                            • 9909

                            Originally posted by MikeSolar
                            Politics seldom agree with the science but usually agrees with the money. It agrees with science only when it becomes overwhelming clear, not before. Governments don't want to get it wrong and lose the next election.
                            Sadly, they usually do not want to get it right and lose the next election either.
                            Australia got strong gun control legislation passed by a politician who knew that he would lose the next election as a result, but took the action anyway.
                            SunnyBoy 3000 US, 18 BP Solar 175B panels.

                            Comment

                            • Ward L
                              Solar Fanatic
                              • Feb 2014
                              • 180

                              What other prevailing theories do you not believe?

                              Is the effect of mankind on climate change the only one? It seems like there should be other conspiracies you believe in.

                              Ok, when the super volcano at Yellowstone NP erupts we will all die sooner than we thought.

                              Comment

                              • Rdjntx
                                Solar Fanatic
                                • Jul 2012
                                • 195

                                you comment is pretty much irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion since climate change is not a "conspiracy" but rather a scientific disagreement. and you are correct, when the super volcano at yellowstone errupts we will all die sooner than we thought .. so what's your point other than it being hperbole?

                                Originally posted by Ward L
                                Is the effect of mankind on climate change the only one? It seems like there should be other conspiracies you believe in.

                                Ok, when the super volcano at Yellowstone NP erupts we will all die sooner than we thought.
                                Originally posted by inetdog
                                Sadly, they usually do not want to get it right and lose the next election either.
                                Australia got strong gun control legislation passed by a politician who knew that he would lose the next election as a result, but took the action anyway.
                                asside from the politics of gun control, if more politicians would do what is right without worrying about their next election the U.S. would be a much better place

                                Comment

                                Working...