Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And you so easily dismiss the EPA’s findings because of something you stumbled across in JunkScience.com.
The difference is that what I discovered in unraveling this issue makes sense. Compared to the EPA standard of what is safe (35 micrograms PM2.5 per cubic meter per 24 hours) it is not rational to suppose that smoking a joint, which was just legalized in La La Land should be permitted. Given that one marijuana cigarette can expose the smoker to 160K micrograms of particulates, the idea that coal plants should be banned because of their “risk” is risible…at best.

I dismiss the EPA’s findings because they are ludicrous on their face. (You are welcome to reinterpret the NAAQS standards; I found them a bit difficult to understand.)
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
As someone who lives with an asthma sufferer, I object to your implication that people with sensitive respiratory systems have the onus on them to provide for themselves the clean air they require.
Resent it all you want but our standards are set for the general good of the population, not just to meet the needs of the utmost sensitive. I fully expect an IC unit treating people with respiratory diseases to use HEPA filters. Homes that care for the aged should also have additional air filters. Heck we should even add it to their building code regulations.
My wife does not belong in an ICU or a home for the aged. She regularly goes on 2-mile walks through the neighborhood and can bicycle circles around many people half her age. She had childhood asthma which she mostly grew out of, but this year the air quality was so bad in Minnesota (even rural Minnesota) that she had to wear a mask to go outdoors. It is ludicrous to suggest that she should have to forego the enjoyment of the outdoors just because you say it is too much bother to keep the air clean. Now the main cause of the air quality problems this year was wildfires in western Ontario. But it is combustion, just like with coal.

8.3% of the population have some form of asthma that would make them sensitive to PM2.5 emissions, like my wife. Asthma has been increasing as a percentage of the population since the 1980’s in all age, sex, and race groups. They are not all going to live in ICUs as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
The duck curve:


Excellent … I’ve seen it previously … but just now found this YouTube.
 
Last edited:
The per year rise may seem small, as was your intention, but that means by 2100, the rise will be over 10 inches. Models show the rise will accelerate so the rise at 2100 would be 11 to 38 inches. If you add that on to storm surges you get a lot more destruction.
 
The per year rise may seem small, as was your intention, but that means by 2100, the rise will be over 10 inches. Models show the rise will accelerate so the rise at 2100 would be 11 to 38 inches. If you add that on to storm surges you get a lot more destruction.
The models say a lot of things. What they rarely do, however, is match up well to the facts.
 
The inset picture provides great perspective on how much the sea is rising annually.
 
Even sticking with Theo’s graph, we have a problem.
The issue (again) is not whether sea levels are rising, which they have been since the end of the little ice age, but whether the rise is accelerating. The graph doesn’t indicate such acceleration.
 
The devil is always in the detail. I agree with your link’s claim the CO2 is a GHG, this scientific fact is not denied by my video.
Well, here’s the detail you missing in my link. The 76 Nobel Laureates signed on to the following declaration:
We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.

In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.
…continued…
 
…continuing…
Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk.
That is certainly not the statement of someone who thinks global warming is pseudo-science, or junk science, as your guys says. By the way, did you notice that your video was a talk given at one of the very same Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings that produced the declaration I just cited above?
 
Last edited:
So you recognize that all the attendees did not agree with all the projections, that’s awful big of you.

The words signed are completely political in nature, not about science. My video is talking about some of the science.
 
Last edited:
So you recognize that all the attendees did not agree with all the projections, that’s awful big of you.
Just wanted to give some balance to your video that when viewed in isolation might give people the wrong impression without inclusion of the fact that his is an extremely minority view.
The words signed are completely political in nature, not about science. My video is talking about some of the science.
I watched the video. It is just as political, commenting on the stupidity of taking the results to mean something needs to be done. He is clearly expressing a radically different view from the 76 I cited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top