Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Winter: Baby, It's Cold Outside!
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 2 of 188 (904209)
12-23-2022 11:09 AM


The bomb cyclone missed me by just a few miles (12/23). It was still down into the teens, but 100-200 miles to the east it was -20.
Hoping everyone else in the path of this storm keeps warm and safe. Happy Holidays!!

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 18 of 188 (904337)
12-27-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by marc9000
12-26-2022 9:45 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
Could it be that the drumbeat of global warming / climate change has at least subconsciously caused the public to somewhat discard the possibility of extreme cold?
That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
And Democrats and the mainstream media chose to emphasize global warming a few decades ago for political purposes, and they made a pretty abrupt switch to climate change, now using it for the exact same political purposes.
What purpose is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by marc9000, posted 12-26-2022 9:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:31 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 23 of 188 (904381)
12-28-2022 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:31 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
To attack free markets, to increase the size and scope of government.
That's nothing but a fever dream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 24 of 188 (904382)
12-28-2022 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:27 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
No, I'm suggesting we don't try to scare them about new, record warmth, and threaten their freedoms with the false hope that government can mandate action that would avoid it.
Why can't governments use laws to encourage the replacement of fossil fuels? Why won't this help?
Republican opposition to government meddling in taxing, freedoms, and free markets would cause people to avoid warnings?
Republicans meddle in all those things.
Global warming involves warming, climate change involves warming, cooling, unusual cold blasts from the arctic, hurricanes, tornados, floods, rising seas, falling seas, melting ice. I'm not sure yet if it includes earthquakes, aggressive behaviors of animals, the sexual drives of fish , increased drug use by the homeless, riots by liberals and tons of other things, but I'm sure if there's a way to do that, it will be done by Democrats.
It involves trapping more heat in the atmosphere due to our use of fossil fuels. This can and does result in more extreme weather as there is more energy in the system. It's not that hard to figure out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 8:56 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 25 of 188 (904384)
12-28-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
12-27-2022 9:05 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
But some scientists without a political agenda also note that the temperature of the earth rose even more 1000 years ago, and other periods much earlier than that, when the earth's population was a small fraction of what it is today, and no fossil fuel was being used.
​
Our world was hotter 1,000 years ago
Warming was only local during the Medieval period. It was not global warming, as explained in this article:
The Climate Epochs That Weren't
Here is the actual change in global temps:
"This is projected" yes, by some scientists and some politicians with a political agenda.
Agendas you have invented from whole cloth.
That could be, but the main reason they disregarded it is because they don't believe humans can control the weather or planet temperature, no matter what they do or discontinue doing.
Some people don't believe the Earth is round. Reality has this strange way of not caring what we believe. The fact is that we are changing the climate due to our production of greenhouse gases.
Conservatives tend avoid demonizing companies that make useful products that the public willingly buys in free markets. They're not jealous of them. They don't hate them.
You don't have to be jealous or hateful to understand what the consequences are of burning fossil fuels. Again, you are dreaming up fantasies.
More than when? Are new records being set? I haven't noticed the mainstream media trumpeting that. And it's certain they would if they could. A lot of records were set before fossil fuels were being used to anywhere near the extent they are today.
Proclaiming your ignorance does nothing to change reality.
No. Your phrase "inaction on climate change" isn't an accurate description of what I said. Inaction on climate change is what Republicans are constantly accused of, while ACTION on climate change (destroying / taking control of free markets, and/or the stripping of money and freedoms from the public to dispel their fears of WARMING) is what Democrats long to do.
Examples?
It's not possible to politically move away from fossil fuels, the world runs on them, and there are no alternatives that come close. Solar and wind are in their infancy, and it's very questionable if they'll ever move beyond that. Their fragility was made clear in Texas less than two years ago.
Fission comes to mind. 80% of the electricity in France is produced by nuclear power plants.
Non-atheists don't believe humans have the capacity to "turn off", or "disarm" anything involving weather, global temperatures, or any weather events.
They don't seem to believe in basic physics, either. Again, why do you think beliefs will change reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 12-27-2022 9:05 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:31 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 35 of 188 (904424)
12-29-2022 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:31 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
The earth's population has risen significantly, which correlates pretty well with these charts that show rising temperatures. Why do we blame fossil fuels for what increased population is causing?
People aren't greenhouse gases, last I checked. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. People are burning fossil fuels, and guess what that produces? Carbon dioxide.
Here is a chart of historic atmospheric carbon dioxide levels:
Notice how carbon dioxide naturally bounces between 180 and 280 ppm? Those are the natural ups and downs caused by the Milankovitch cycles:
https://climate.nasa.gov/...and-their-role-in-earths-climate
Notice how we are now at above 400 ppm? Do you think it's just a coincidence that we are >40% above natural levels at the same time we are dumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Most of all, how do we know that the increase is due to fossil fuels? Because of the carbon isotopes. Fossil fuels come from life, and life ultimate derives its carbon from photosynthesis. This process favors the lighter 12C isotope over 13C, and the carbon captured has higher 12C that abiotic carbon dioxide. What do we see in the increase in carbon dioxide? We see a dip in 13C, the same isotope signature seen in fossil fuels.
And if you are thinking that the carbon dioxide's impact on capturing heat is just some recent hippy trend, think again. Svante Arrhenius was the one of the first to calculate the impact on heat capture by atmospheric carbon dioxide clear back in 1896. Let me repeat. 1896. You can read the paper here:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
His rough calculations predicted a 4C increase in global temps for each doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. We are almost at a 50% increase, and Arrhenius' calculations have been improved since the late 19th century.
Your dream that humans have the power to change back the temperature of the planet that you believe they caused to rise in the first place isn't reality.
It's a reality. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Humans are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. That captures more heat. It's just a fact.
Due to 8 billion people selfishly desiring to eat and keep warm. Who should be denied the ability to do this?
I'm not saying they should be denied the ability to eat and keep warm. The obvious solution is to find alternate energy sources that are affordable and dependable.
What are the consequences of NOT using fossil fuels, when there are, as of yet, no alternatives?
There are alternatives. Fission for one.
You have a strange way of conceding points. So you can't name any new specific records being set?
Yes. We have new records for carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. New records for global temps. Do you deny these?
CO2 Records
quote:
Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS).
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You provided one example.
I am not the one claiming Democrats are trying to take control of all these things. That is your claim. Show me an example.
Laws to prohibit some people, (people with no political influence) from buying a product that they want / need. Here's another;
​
Repairing Your Car in Your Own Garage Is Considered Illegal in Sacramento, California
​
That has nothing to do with fossil fuels.
Ever sit in an auto emissions testing line? The worst polluting car in the world, that its owner was denied the use of to feed his family, didn't put out a fraction of carbon emissions as does John Kerry's private jet.
That's about air pollution, not fossil fuel use. I guess you weren't aware of how bad air quality was before these measures were put in place? This is what the air in LA looked like before these types of measures were put in place:
Nuclear power? The power source that Democrats have fought tooth and nail against for decades?
If Democrats are against it you should be all for it, right? How is fission power not an alternative?
Again, it's not reality to believe that human tyrants can reverse rising temperatures of the planet.
Sorry, but facts demonstrate otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 36 of 188 (904425)
12-29-2022 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
12-29-2022 7:26 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
Thus far, *we* the people have no definite gauge as to who employs scare tactics and who (which ideology in power at the moment) actually *does* scary things.
Trying to stop the transfer of power and basic constitutional processes in an insurrection is pretty scary. Trying to claim that the Vice President can throw out a fair election and just appoint someone to be US President is pretty scary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 12-29-2022 7:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 37 of 188 (904426)
12-29-2022 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
12-28-2022 9:42 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
When does heat produce cold?
Global warming interrupts the stratospheric polar vortex which allows storms to roll down from the arctic into the middle latittudes.
Just a moment...
The air was already cold because its the freaking arctic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by marc9000, posted 12-28-2022 9:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 42 of 188 (904464)
12-30-2022 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
12-30-2022 1:33 AM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
It seems to me that he is calling out a Democratic government for passing laws for the all-inclusive "good of the people." In short, an authoritarian government.
That's not what an authoritarian government is. The fact we have free and fair elections means it isn't an authoritarian government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-30-2022 1:33 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 43 of 188 (904467)
12-30-2022 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
12-29-2022 9:49 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
People aren't greenhouse gases, correct, but the more people there are in existence, the more fossil fuels have be burnt to basically sustain their lives.
There is no physical law that says we have to get our energy from fossil fuels.
Also, people exhale carbon dioxide.
People eat food, not fossil fuels. This means carbon is captured to produce our people fuel, making people carbon neutral.
I realize the existence of all these scientific talking points. But not once was the word "laws" mentioned. I don't have time to read your links, but if the word "laws" is in there anywhere, direct me to that specific content and we'll discuss it.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the science go away.
The words "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas" weren't in my above statement. The phrase "power to change" were the key words. That's POLITICS, not reality.
The first step is realizing the facts, which you refuse to do.
Free markets can do that, laws cannot. Alternate energy sources are nowhere near ready yet.
80% of France's electricity is made with fission power. It's here and ready.
Oil is a substance. It's a lubricant, it's needed in the manufacture of rubber and plastic products, and has many other uses, it's not only burned for energy. Nuclear and fission and all of that are just energy, not physical substances.
You hit all of the branches on the stupid tree when you fell out of it.
BURNING FOSSIL FUELS IS THE PROBLEM? Understand?
The fission of uranium is a very real thing. It releases high energy photons and particles which can heat water. That hot water can turn into steam and drive turbines. Spinning turbines produce electricity. This really exists, and it works. Do you really think denying the existence of nuclear power plants makes you look good?
I was thinking more of local records. Temps in the U.S. They're more realistic and verifiable by the public, than are global temperatures claimed by a special interest.
I was thinking more of reality.
No response from you.
The incentives for buying electric cars is a great example. Subsidies for nuclear power plants would be a great idea. Subsidies for solar and wind would also be great.
Cars burn fossil fuel, which emit carbon dioxide. Air pollution consists largely of carbon dioxide. Same with jets.
Air pollution consists largely of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various hydrocarbons. That's why cars have catalytic converters, to try and get rid of these pollutants. This is also why emission testing exists, to make sure vehicles aren't releasing too much of these pollutants.
The term "fact" doesn't apply to future reversals, especially political projections.
Yes, it does. If we stop burning fossil fuels then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will go down and global warming will be reduced. Those are facts.
If climate change alarmism was anything more than a power grab by one political party, the way to analyze it and deal with would have gone down a much different path decades ago.
So says the person who refuses to look at the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 12-29-2022 9:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 01-02-2023 8:41 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 68 of 188 (904620)
01-03-2023 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by marc9000
01-02-2023 10:33 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
You know, authoritarian laws.
What makes them authoritarian?
They often do, when authoritarian laws do things like deny people the ability to register their cars because they don't pass climate change testing.
How is that authoritarian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by marc9000, posted 01-02-2023 10:33 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2023 8:50 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 69 of 188 (904621)
01-03-2023 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by marc9000
01-02-2023 10:24 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
The U.S. government recently hired 87,000 new IRS agents. That is additional authoritarianism.
WHAT?????? Enforcing laws is authoritarianism? What are you smoking?
Every country enforces their laws. Is every country authoritarian?
Of course, and it won't mention Green New Deal authoritarianism.
What is in the Green New Deal that you find authoritarian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by marc9000, posted 01-02-2023 10:24 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2023 9:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 71 of 188 (904636)
01-03-2023 5:43 PM


Taking the Temp in the Room
Let me see if I understand the right wing view on things.
Authoritarianism is where a country makes laws and then puts people in charge of making sure people don't break those laws. Therefore, every country on the face of the Earth is authoritarian.
What right wingers think our government should do is just let people pollute as much as they want. Dump tons of radioactive waste into every river system on the continent? Sure, go for it. After all, we can't get in the way of personal freedoms. That would be authoritarianism. Let factories flood our ground water with carcinogens? Sure, why not? They should be free to do whatever they want, right? Let people kill whomever they want? Absolutely!! People should be able to do whatever they want. Cross the border and get a job? Absolutely, that's a personal freedom, right? It would be authoritarian to tell people they couldn't.
If you want to understand what the USofA would look like if these type of right wingers were in charge, just watch any popular post-apocalyptic show you know of where there's no laws and no police. That's what they want, apparently.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2023 9:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 78 of 188 (904661)
01-04-2023 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
01-04-2023 2:44 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
Phat writes:
True enough. This does not mean that we collectively need to morph towards a one-world "democratic" government that markets itself "for the good of all people".
No one is saying that we need a one-world democracy to reduce carbon emissions.
All we are asking is that we follow the facts instead of misleading people with misinformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 01-04-2023 2:44 PM Phat has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 90 of 188 (904888)
01-10-2023 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by marc9000
01-05-2023 8:50 PM


Re: Midwest unprepared
marc9000 writes:
When they're promoted and enacted by special interests, rather than the legislative process. Or when the legislators are corrupted.
That's not authoritarianism. Wow, you really don't know what it is.
Authoritarianism ; the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
Can you name a non-authoritarian law that has passed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2023 8:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 01-10-2023 9:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024