kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 17, 2015 16:21:37 GMT -5
And why do some people always think that governments, most of whom can't run a motor vehicles department, will be the key to anything this large? Because government has been successful before (Montreal Protocol, Cap and Trade for Acid Rain, Clean Air Act, etc) and because market based approaches will probably be the most successful at speeding up the transition. I agree that market based approaches would probably be the most successful approach, but can that work on a global scale. Do you see all countries signing on? I think that's the biggest hurdle to designing an effective architecture for a worldwide application of cap and trade to control pollution.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 17, 2015 16:26:00 GMT -5
By Fred Hiatt, W. Post December 6 at 6:59 PM To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil.
No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory--------------------- So has Exxon joined the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People?" I'm confused. I thought Exxon was criminally liable in their climate change denials? Sheldon Whitehouse: Sue Fossil Fuel Companies For Climate Fraudthinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 10, 2016 16:08:52 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 21, 2016 12:46:06 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 6, 2016 20:54:07 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 6, 2016 21:56:07 GMT -5
Interesting article, though horribly written. It has a very Taibbi vibe sans the sarcasm but with all of the intellectual superiority. The "report" link within the article, however, doesn't seem to point to any actual supporting studies or articles. Would you happen to know to which reports the author was referring?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 7:11:12 GMT -5
He is correct in that one cannot prove that human activity impacts on global warming. However, the rate of warming in the last 60 years is unprecedented. We have a history of global temperatures going back tens of millions of years (and yes we can determine the temperature that far back by drilling into the polar ice caps). Furthermore, the rate of increase parallels the rate of use of fossil fuels. Proof no, but highly probable theory. After all, one cannot prove evolution either.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 7, 2016 11:49:31 GMT -5
Interesting article, though horribly written. It has a very Taibbi vibe sans the sarcasm but with all of the intellectual superiority. The "report" link within the article, however, doesn't seem to point to any actual supporting studies or articles. Would you happen to know to which reports the author was referring? I agree it was horribly written. I had trouble following along.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 7, 2016 11:52:17 GMT -5
He is correct in that one cannot prove that human activity impacts on global warming. However, the rate of warming in the last 60 years is unprecedented. We have a history of global temperatures going back tens of millions of years (and yes we can determine the temperature that far back by drilling into the polar ice caps). Furthermore, the rate of increase parallels the rate of use of fossil fuels. Proof no, but highly probable theory. After all, one cannot prove evolution either. So, if we can't quantify what impact human activity has on the climate, and we can say with a reasonably high degree of scientific certainty what activities have which impacts, isn't it reasonable for us to question the costs of undertaking massive changes to our economy and society when the benefit is uncertain? BTW, did you once say that you are a medical doctor? I thought I read that in one of your earlier posts.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 20, 2016 16:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 20, 2016 17:19:44 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 21, 2016 19:01:18 GMT -5
As noted in your reference, the records used go back only 137 years so how can we say last year or any other year are the hottest we have ever seen when the earth is many, many millions of years old. Per www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been it is believed the average earth temperature was, perhaps, about 2,600 degrees F in its early days and later, about 56 million years ago the temperatures were about 13 degrees warmer than today and crocodiles and palm trees may have existed above the Arctic Circle. It is plainly dishonest to claim earth temperatures are rising dangerously when you confine your graphs to only the last relatively short time period. It's akin to looking at the Dow stock averages from 9;00 to 9:30 this morning and trying to pretend this represents a long term trend while ignoring the previous 200 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 19:26:21 GMT -5
Hi The rate of rise of temperatures has been unprecedented in the last 30-40 years. I believe the authors were referring to the highest temperatures recorded since we have accurately measuring them with thermometers. This very rapid rise parallels the unprecedented use of fossil fuels.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 22, 2016 15:25:49 GMT -5
When humans did not roam the earth, it really didn't make any difference what the temperature was. The early universe was a conflagration as things were being formed and coalescing. When humans came into the picture, things like temperature rises and falls became significant to the humans. In the past 150 years we have been on a revolution of technology and that brings us some unwanted results - pollution, crowding, and currently we are seeing the climate change brought about by large amounts of global warming gases filling the atmosphere. Now we are worried about climate change and with it increasing ocean levels, that can mean disaster especially for the folks living on the coast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 18:17:48 GMT -5
I don't believe that the Ocean rises are going to be as great as predicted. As the global temperatures rise, there is more evaporation. There is more precipitation, but some of it falls on the poles which still are permanently frozen. This results in a thickening of the polar ice caps which we are seeing. Some of the excess rainfall also occurs in the deserts. The water is deposited in the underground aquafores(sp). These two factors will limit the rate of rise in the Oceans.
I am not as pessimistic as you are. If the Oceans rise, humans will adapt. Human ingenuity will help solve the problem (I hope)
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 22, 2016 20:39:02 GMT -5
Don't even worry about it. That 2600 was a dry heat.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,414
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Sept 23, 2016 13:18:00 GMT -5
Where is that excess rainfall in Las Vegas? Ok, we may be at our average amount this year of 4 inches the way we are going. Seriously, I hope you are right, Jerry. It may not matter for me as I am old, but for my son and the next generation and the generation after that, I hope the worse doesn't come true. Someday nuclear fusion should be a viable alternative, and I hold out hope that this will solve some of the climate change problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 16:23:51 GMT -5
The polar caps are much much larger than Las Vegas. The increase is very small over a period of years. But with a huge land mass such as the polar regions, it mounts up. It has been well documented that the polar caps have been thickening. Of course if the alarmists are correct, you may be able to walk to the beach in Las Vegas in 30-40 years
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Sept 23, 2016 17:57:33 GMT -5
It has been well documented that the polar caps have been thickening. I don't believe it means exactly what you think it means. The ice is expanding in some places in Antarctica, decreasing significantly in others, while the Arctic ice cap is decreasing full stop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 20:08:27 GMT -5
Hi You are not correct. The borders are receding but where the temperatures never rises above freezing, the polar caps are thickening.
|
|