The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Dumbastheycome]

Well I  guess   that  given to  the  topic  heading  starts  with   "The   myth" rather  than  the  actuality  then  opinion would  mirror the  problem of  zero  consensus.

[ilostmypassword]

16 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Well perhaps less than a gazillion eh? But all off these fossil fuel burning machines are for the most part recyclable. But if you are going to stick 50 or 100 kg of toxic waste in each one, in the form of modern fast charging batteries. You are adding massive amounts of toxic poisons to the environment. Whereas CO2 is a beneficial life supporting gas. Greenies are passing the buck because they believe the anti CO2 propaganda. But the battery issue is going to be a real environmental problem, Not just a computer model of doom.

First off, it's nonsense about CO2 being beneficial. For the most important crops, grains, it actually reduces their available protein content.

First of all, even the current lithium ion batteries are getting ore and ore recyclable.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program

 

Solid state batteries which will soon be replacing them, are virtually entirely recyclable. Also virtually non toxic.

[RickBradford]

Quote

First off, it's nonsense about CO2 being beneficial.

 

Well, I guess that says all we need to know about your scientific knowledge, since life on earth as we know it wouldn't exist without the stuff.

[boomerangutang]

Common batteries, when they die, have some toxic elements - even considering recycling some of their parts.  Newer models probably have less-toxicity.  I don't know, though it's interesting that Tesla is building what is probably the largest battery-making plant in the world, somewhere near Reno Nevada.  Tesla is run by environmentally-aware folks, so I trust they take environmental issues into account re; manufacturing. 

 

More important, is the overall picture.  It's a matter of degrees (pun intended).  Fossil fuel motors are past their heyday.  They will still be used, but the party is winding down for internal combustion engines, as we've known them since the latter 19th century.  

 

Cleaner, quieter, comparatively recyclable tech is taking the place of dirty, polluting, internal combustion engines.  The sun is rising on alt.energy, and the black orb of smoke-belching motors is setting.   

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

 

Well, I guess that says all we need to know about your scientific knowledge, since life on earth as we know it wouldn't exist without the stuff.

Fine, you got me there for a sloppy sentence. But clearly the context was evidence since I followed up with "For the most important crops, grains, it actually reduces their available protein content." So  let me rephrase it. 

First off, it's nonsense about an increase in  CO2 being beneficial. For the most important crops, grains, it actually reduces their available protein content.

Better?

And what's your answer to that? And there's lots more problems with that more CO2 is better argument as you well know from times you've tried to get away with asserting that this is the case in the past.

[ilostmypassword]

17 hours ago, RickBradford said:

I wouldn't try.

 

Those are not ad hominem attacks, as no specific person has been identified. And if you want to start a debate about the scope of the phrase ad hominem, you're on your own.

 

For politicians, I could cite several dozen, celebrities likewise, NGOs a handful, and bucketloads of journalists.

 

The cases I cited in person are clear: both Kennedy and Geldof are on video; Parncutt wrote a blog post.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.^[2]

 

You could cite dozens of politicians but you didn't cite any. And then you would have to prove that these are "personal vanity projects."

And as for celebrities you would have to prove your assertion that "celebrities are trying to appear noble". Again, an unprovable attack on motives.

And you still didn't address 3 of your assertions.

 

2)most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN

 

4) nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press

5)Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

 

So no it's not the case, contrary to what you maintained that these are  "All well-documented occurrences, as 2 minutes with Google would demonstrate."

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Common batteries, when they die, have some toxic elements - even considering recycling some of their parts.  Newer models probably have less-toxicity.  I don't know, though it's interesting that Tesla is building what is probably the largest battery-making plant in the world, somewhere near Reno Nevada.  Tesla is run by environmentally-aware folks, so I trust they take environmental issues into account re; manufacturing. 

 

More important, is the overall picture.  It's a matter of degrees (pun intended).  Fossil fuel motors are past their heyday.  They will still be used, but the party is winding down for internal combustion engines, as we've known them since the latter 19th century.  

 

Cleaner, quieter, comparatively recyclable tech is taking the place of dirty, polluting, internal combustion engines.  The sun is rising on alt.energy, and the black orb of smoke-belching motors is setting.   

 

 

 

 

Probably not.

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/32133-chinese-battery-plant-tesla-gigafactory

 

When complete, Tesla’s Gigafactory will produce batteries at a faster rate than bullets firing out of a machine gun. But that’s not as fast as what one factory plans in China. Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd., CATL for short, is building a monster-sized factory on the edge of the southeastern city of Ningde. The Ningde plant could steal the crown from Tesla as the largest battery factory in the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:30 PM, craigt3365 said:

1. Only a naif would confuse scientists with politicians.

 

2. I'll stick with the letter supported by thousands of scientists. Enough for me.

You apparently believe anything that comes from someone that is a scientist, which is obviously a nonsense. There are just as many crooks and charlatans masquerading as scientists as in any other human occupation except perhaps second hand car salesmen, Thai condo salespersons and politicians.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 2:54 PM, craigt3365 said:

An aggressive agenda to save our planet?  Are you against that?

 

Only hysterical propaganda I've seen is from those who deny climate change.

Can you quote any TVF poster that denies climate change? I know of none such.

[craigt3365]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You apparently believe anything that comes from someone that is a scientist, which is obviously a nonsense. There are just as many crooks and charlatans masquerading as scientists as in any other human occupation except perhaps second hand car salesmen, Thai condo salespersons and politicians.

B.S.

[pkspeaker]

On 11/25/2017 at 2:55 PM, heybruce said:

Would a picture make it clearer?

 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

Houses and other buildings don't run, they are meant to stay in the same place for decades.  They are often built on flat land near beaches where small rises in sea level can turn the land under them into mud and make storms much more dangerous.  And, as has been repeatedly noted, the rate of sea level rising has increased dramatically.

What they are doing with this 'picture' is proxy data cherry picking, they are then stapling on the current CO2 ppm.  They used a selection of ice cores to determine that CO2 was never over 300ppm, those would be the ice cores from near the poles.  They ignored:

1) proxy data from fossilized leaves shows that CO2 had been over 350 or 400ppm

2) hundreds of CO2 measurements in the 1800's and early 1900's using chemical analysis, which is just as reliable as modern spectroscopy techniques, had repeatedly showed CO2 levels 320,350, even over 400.  The measurements they get often depend on when & where the measurements take place, giving scientists even more  room to fudge when they have an agenda. 

 

BTW less that 150 parts per million (that's for every 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere, only 150 would be CO2) all life on Earth would die, the plants would die, we would die-it would be a dead planet.. yet they claim that it is somehow 'normal' to be just over that critical level; And of course the 'picture' doesn't go back further than 400,000 years when the CO2 levels were as high as 6000ppm. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by pkspeaker

[Watchful]

On 12/5/2017 at 8:45 PM, boomerangutang said:

Fossil fuel motors are past their heyday.  They will still be used, but the party is winding down for internal combustion engines, as we've known them since the latter 19th century.  

 

Cleaner, quieter, comparatively recyclable tech is taking the place of dirty, polluting, internal combustion engines.  The sun is rising on alt.energy, and the black orb of smoke-belching motors is setting.   

 

No question that electric motors run cleaner than IC engines. Problem is their batteries are charged over night by electricity generated in power plants ... belching smoke. 

[Thongkorn]

Been down to the beach where i live in the UK , measured the tide coming in, No its not risen in the last 50 years at least in the UK.

[ClutchClark]

11 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Been down to the beach where i live in the UK , measured the tide coming in, No its not risen in the last 50 years at least in the UK.

 

Exactly, just went down to the beach I grew up on 78 years ago and the tide was still breaking just below my knees.

 

 

 

 

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, Watchful said:

No question that electric motors run cleaner than IC engines. Problem is their batteries are charged over night by electricity generated in power plants ... belching smoke. 

 

And don't forget the mining necessary for the battery materials and the fact the battery has a usable life of maybe 4-5 years before it will no longer hold a charge. 

[Thongkorn]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Exactly, just went down to the beach I grew up on 78 years ago and the tide was still breaking just below my knees.

 

 

 

 

 And the water only comes halfway up our ducks on the river too.

[Jack100]

Easy to agree that climate change is happening  -  however to quote Sarah Palin  ( sorry about that )  " you don't have to tell me about climate change - I live in Alaska  - where we disagree is whether we think it's possible to do something  about it " .

 

Seems to me the first question is easy to answer and we never seem to get to the second part ..................

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, Watchful said:

No question that electric motors run cleaner than IC engines. Problem is their batteries are charged over night by electricity generated in power plants ... belching smoke. 

That's old paradigm.  New thinking shows that batteries can get charged by solar and other clean alternatives.  I predict the first commercial alt-powered roadside re-charging stations will be in the western USA.  There are long stretches of lonely hwy, and lots of sun.  Alternative places where such re-charging stations may first show up are China, Australia, Germany or Denmark.

 

And for those saying that solar is only effective while the sun shines or that wind-power only works when the wind is blowing -  that's also old ways of thinking.  Each month there are technical/mechanical improvements to ways for storing energy.   My favorite is storing power via pressurized air.  Already there are prototype garage-sized tanks for storing pressurized air (the vanguard of that tech is in California).  There are other non-polluting ways to store energy for cloudy or windless times.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

Someone opined earlier that there are no posters in this thread who deny climate change. If one defines climate change as:  'a warming planet with much of that warming caused by human activities'  .....then the earlier opinion is off-the-mark.

 

There are deniers, and several are active on this thread.  Perhaps some are easing a bit closer to believing scientific studies, but the die-hards are fixated in their denial that the earth is getting warmer and/or human activity has significant affect on that warming.

[Thongkorn]

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

That's old paradigm.  New thinking shows that batteries can get charged by solar and other clean alternatives.  I predict the first commercial alt-powered roadside re-charging stations will be in the western USA.  There are long stretches of lonely hwy, and lots of sun.

 

And for those saying that solar is only effective while the sun shines or that wind-power only works when the wind is blowing -  that's also old ways of thinking.  Each month there are technical/mechanical improvements to ways for storing energy.   My favorite is storing power via pressurized air.  Already there are prototype garage-sized tanks for storing pressurized air (the vanguard of that tech is in California).  There are other non-polluting ways to store energy for cloudy or windless times.

 

 

Britain was actually run on 90% of wind Generated power, 

[canuckamuck]

10 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Someone opined earlier that there are no posters in this thread who deny climate change. If one defines climate change as:  'a warming planet with much of that warming caused by human activities'  .....then the earlier opinion is off-the-mark.

 

There are deniers, and several are active on this thread.  Perhaps some are easing a bit closer to believing scientific studies, but the die-hards are fixated in their denial that the earth is getting warmer and/or human activity has significant affect on that warming.

Sure, If you change the meaning of climate change, you will get different results about where people stand. Not very precise though is it?

[canuckamuck]

On 05/12/2017 at 11:09 PM, ilostmypassword said:

First off, it's nonsense about CO2 being beneficial. For the most important crops, grains, it actually reduces their available protein content.

First of all, even the current lithium ion batteries are getting ore and ore recyclable.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program

 

Solid state batteries which will soon be replacing them, are virtually entirely recyclable. Also virtually non toxic.

I see you ate your words about CO2 not being beneficial, that was good of you.  As far as cereals losing protein; is that the only example you can find of a downside in agriculture? First I would like to know if the difference is statistically relevant on such low PPM increases And secondly cereals make up only a small percentage of consumable vegetable matter. And since greenhouse vegetable producers actually add CO2 to there greenhouses to increase yields. I am willing to bet that your red herring of a minute protein loss in cereals is offset massively by a much greater volume of nutritious food available. A handful of beans will make up for a whole lot of glutinous flour and better for you too.

I'll give you a few points about the battery recylability though. I am sure that we will find a way to deal with all that toxic waste eventually.

[RickBradford]

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Sure, If you change the meaning of climate change, you will get different results about where people stand. Not very precise though is it?

The poster in question has no intention of being precise; quite the opposite.

 

The Green/Left prefers to be vague, even contradictory, to avoid having to step into the cold light of data, facts and reality. That's why they throw around lame meaningless slurs like 'denier' the whole time. It's code for "your views are beyond the pale so I don't have to listen to you. So there."

 

'Denier' is first cousin to 'racist' or 'Islamophobe'; a term used to suppress debate, not encourage it. Which in turn makes climate activism simply another outpost of social justice warrior activity, another iteration of the Victim-Oppressor game the Green/Left is so fond of.

 

I can see the attraction. Standing up for "climate justice" requires no thought, and no knowledge, and confers a instant comforting sense of moral superiority on themselves. That is very attractive to a certain sort of personality.

[Dumbastheycome]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:43 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

You apparently believe anything that comes from someone that is a scientist, which is obviously a nonsense. There are just as many crooks and charlatans masquerading as scientists as in any other human occupation except perhaps second hand car salesmen, Thai condo salespersons and politicians.

You  missed  out  Ministers  of   Religion ! 

[wabothai]

On 3/21/2017 at 4:18 AM, shows said:

Who is Sam Khoury? What are his qualifications? And why would The Nation print such nonsense?

perhaps suggested by the generals. 

[boomerangutang]

13 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Sure, If you change the meaning of climate change, you will get different results about where people stand. Not very precise though is it?

I never liked the term 'climate change' because it's too vague and all-encompassing.  Of course climate changes.  I like the earlier term: Global Warming.  

 

I was defining the term 'climate change' (in my earlier missive) because it's too easy to skew the meaning, according to points which people like RickBradford to try to make.  

 

Deniers are becoming 'double-deniers.'  They spend months trying to convince others that the planet is not warming.  Now, Bradford seems to admit the world is warming, but denies that he earlier denied it.  Hence the newly coined term: Double Denier.  Some now concede that there's warming, but refuse to fathom that humans can have an effect on the warming process.  

 

It's a bit like discussing God.  God can be 100 different things to 100 different people, and even that's mutable, depending on their individual moods, and what they're trying to convey.  

[pkspeaker]

13 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Someone opined earlier that there are no posters in this thread who deny climate change. If one defines climate change as:  'a warming planet with much of that warming caused by human activities'  .....then the earlier opinion is off-the-mark.

 

There are deniers, and several are active on this thread.  Perhaps some are easing a bit closer to believing scientific studies, but the die-hards are fixated in their denial that the earth is getting warmer and/or human activity has significant affect on that warming.

If one defines climate change as:  'a warming planet with much of that warming caused by human activities' 

 

Your damn right I DENY that the planet is even warming in the first place. The warming that did happen since the 1700's had absolutely nothing to do with 'human activity'.  You on the other hand are a DENIER or reality.

 

Lets start off with the FACT there were more hot days in the 1930's & 1960's than there are today using the NOAA's measured, observed data, you can see the cahrts here:

 

Despite 'peer review being complete garbage', there are similar charts to the ones you see on that video in a peer reviewed paper by both MIT & the EPA, you can see a link to that report here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-

 

As of the 1980's there was scientific consensus that there had been a cooling trend for several decades since warming peeked in the 1930's:

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.VhxDosjJ.dpbs

(the trend then shifted to warming from appox 1975-2000 before stabilizing to no detectable warming or cooling for the last 20 years)

 

The world is currently in the MIDDLE of an ElNino/LaNina (warm/cool) cycle, which means we have the warm phase of it behind us and the cool phase in the next couple of years AND we have the Angun and several other volcanoes blowing which will cause more cooling + David Dilley former NOAA scientist is tracking cold 13 year 'arctic pulses' which are due to hit the norther hemisphere around 2020-21 AND the AMO index is going into cool phase.. DESPITE the fact that none of that COLD has even happened yet, there is still NO warming for the last 20 years, when it does not even the climate adjusters will be able to escape the fact that it's global cooling since 1997!

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/#sthash.2XPmxaYl.Ie9f7u9L.dpbs

 

..AND the we have the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice gains which I had already linked to repeatedly on this thread + we have a COOLING pacific:

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/03/7-major-signs-the-globes-surface-has-been-cooling-and-will-continue-to-cool/#sthash.FIO4rB9t.dpbs

 

The reality is that the only data sets that show warming in the last 20 years are ones that contain bogus adjustments.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by pkspeaker

[ricklev]

Just curious, do y'all think people who smoke cigarettes are more likely to get lung cancer.  If not, OK, fair enough.  If so, when and why did you start believing that?  I'm just trying to understand science and scientists and all that.  

 

 

[VocalNeal]

14 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

My favorite is storing power via pressurized air. 

My favourite is pumping water uphill. They have been doing that for years at night.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

[ClutchClark]

29 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

My favourite is pumping water uphill. They have been doing that for years at night.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

 

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

"

Today, Dinorwig is operated not to help meet peak loads but as a STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve), providing a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand or sudden loss of power stations. In a common scenario (known as TV pickup), the end of a popular national television programme or advertising breaks in commercial television programmes send millions of consumers to switch on electric kettles in the space of a few minutes, leading to overall demand increases of up to 2800MW.^[5] In anticipation of this surge, an appropriate number of units at Dinorwig (or other services competing for National Grid Reserve Service duty) may be brought on line as the closing credits start to roll. The monitoring of popular television channels is an important factor in electricity grid control centres.