Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Give me a minus too.

Randumberthandogshit, you are -129 points because, even though you are a lefty fuckwad, you are stupid as arctic dog shit, I am -36 because I am a caustic consevitave.

The idea that humans can't adapt to a changing climate is preposterous.  How do you suppose we stop the climate from changing?  Has it ever?

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, warbird said:

The CAGW depends on data manipulation tending always to the worst case scenario, and synchophant followers believing the gloom  and doom....

bullshit. you're brainwashed and your simple mind was ripe for it. 

that sucks for others.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 10:18 PM, random said:

 

So you see it's not hard, even a dumb cunt like you should be able to do some basic research.

So it comes down to this, who do you believe?

  1. Shills paid for by coal companies
  2. Government Organisations like I post links to

I chose 2.

Good stuff, I was honestly suspicous when I was served that link.
I am good at research, it's just so much easier to get you to do it, and I know you love that shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ModernViking said:

Good stuff, I was honestly suspicous when I was served that link.
I am good at research, it's just so much easier to get you to do it, and I know you love that shit.

my hunch is that he loves telling fk wits and scumbags they're full of shit (I suspect the research is just a means to an end).

Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent article in Texas Monthly about Climate Change, specifically a woman who teaches at Texas Tech. It's long and has a lot of words but I challenge every denier to read it and comment https://getpocket.com/explore/item/unfriendly-climate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

She is smart and has an easy way of explaining a difficult topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

 

"I don't want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists," she said in a soft voice, noting that she wanted her opening testimony to be a 2018 United Nations report, which called for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

"I want you to then unite behind the science -- and then I want you to take real action."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

An excellent article in Texas Monthly about Climate Change, specifically a woman who teaches at Texas Tech. It's long and has a lot of words but I challenge every denier to read it and comment https://getpocket.com/explore/item/unfriendly-climate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

She is smart and has an easy way of explaining a difficult topic. 

what is the "challenge" you speak of? There is no data presented. 

For me this stood out. "Hayhoe herself is most excited by the efforts of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors and founder of SpaceX. “If I had to pick one person to save the world—and I don’t think any one person will but if I had to pick one—it would be him.” She is excited about the battery packs that Tesla is developing, declaring energy storage the “single technology that will make the most difference.” 

I drive electric so I have skin in the game. A Tesla battery is made from some of the nastiest crap on the planet. The local carbon footprint may go down but the global one sure doesn't. Space X? how many tons of CO2 is literally blasted into the atmosphere every time he launches one... Not exactly carbon neutral... 

I also liked the "mitigate, adapt or suffer" analogy. If indeed GW is being caused by man then there is no mitigate. The amount of reduction needed to make a difference would plunge our world into a catastrophic disaster. Imagine if you will not enough energy to drive the most basic consumption, so no jobs, not enough food so riots, pillaging, disease from a dirty home/local environment (look at all the old diseases making a comeback due to trash, bums shitting in our streets etc.). Ultimately war between the nations for non-conformance or over using banned resources (oil). Basically all the worst parts of the bible...  

So mitigating could just as easily cause more suffering than doing nothing... So on that part of the article I disagree. As with most of these types of dooms day pieces (even the nice eloquent one like this one) never detail the cost (both economic and human life) needed to make their ideal world work...

The road to hell is paved and all that...   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the challenge would be to actually understand what she wrote.  Including references to how far back man has been effecting the climate by measuring the temperature. And there is no if - it's how much and to what degree the effects will be, we are already seeing some and the worst is yet to come. 

At least you made an attempt which is more than warbird, jzk and friends will do. But kudos for the whataboutism by bringing up space launches.  I started to link an article in Nat Geo about the changes to the ice in Greenland but it requires a subscription. No good news there and only those who care would bother to read it. 

I appreciate her approach, she doesn't get defensive even when having to meet the James Inhofe and Ted Cruz guys whose political future depends on big money from fossil fuel "donations" (in quotes because those are investments).  Don't remember if was from this article but in the industrialized world the US is #1 in people who don't think climate change is real.  wow. just wow.  Edumacation at it's best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck you @Movable Ballast

A Heat Wave in Australia Killed 23,000 Spectacled Flying Foxes

01_flyingfox_10003326n_rm_2400.jpg?itok=

"Weighing up to two pounds and with wingspans approaching five feet, spectacled flying foxes are among the largest bats in the world. Now imagine what it would be like if 23,000 of them fell out of the trees and onto, say, your car or backyard pool.

That’s what happened last November on the northern coast of Australia when a record-setting heat wave pushed temperatures past 107 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end. The spectacled flying foxes, which are accustomed to shady forest understories, tried to ride out the wave by fanning their wings, panting, and spreading saliva across their bodies, but these cooling measures can combat only so much heat. In the end, tens of thousands of these fruit bats fell to the ground dead. Hundreds more wound up in rehabilitation facilities."

Now these mammals have been living in the same places on their annual travels for millions of years, this has never happened to them before.  If it did, they would not go there!

So fuck any stupid cunt on here who denies the fucking obvious.  Even worse are evil greedy cunts who ask about the 'cost' of changing our ways.

02_flyingfox_1b6a9486_david_white_rm_240

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love flying foxes.  They used to fly over here every afternoon on dark, haven't seen any for a while.

It is possible in the next year or two, that one single event like this could kill every last one of them.  Imagine that, extinct in one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just go home from a very interesting presentation on wildlife.

The "Armadillo Line" which is a very real, very easily observable, is moving north. The is the boundary between areas where you see possums... furry and able to live thru cold winters.... and where you see armadillos.

Both are relatively slow-moving and commonly hit by cars. In Texas, within 100~150 miles of the Gulf Coast, southern Georgia, you see armadillos. In suburbs where there are lots of loose trash cans, and hilly country where it freezes, you see some possums but it's mostly armadillos. Getting up into norther Alabama, upper South Carolina, you see fewer and fewer, finally no, armadillos; instead you see possums.

There are now armadillos living in a few of the southern counties of North Carolina.

"Believing in" climate change, or not believing in it, is like "believing in" (or not) gravity or electricity. It's fairly easily observable fact.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:

An excellent article in Texas Monthly about Climate Change, specifically a woman who teaches at Texas Tech. It's long and has a lot of words but I challenge every denier to read it and comment https://getpocket.com/explore/item/unfriendly-climate?utm_source=pocket-newtab

She is smart and has an easy way of explaining a difficult topic. 

I got half way through and found it to be only an OP ED......

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're a dipshit. as a climate scientist, the woman is on the front lines and has no political agenda here. the huge amounts of data she processes and has intimate knowledge of, doesn't support your moronic stance. at all. in the least.

wake your right-winger clown ass up, 'warbird'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:

Well, that was a well thought out and balanced counter argument.

you like that, turdcutter? call it a hint, right-winger clown argument isn't really relevant here any more, never really was.

me, I'm tired of simple dipshits like you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@toecutter aka LBwhatever:  Congratulations on those well thought out snippets of wisdom.  I must wonder just how much Koch you have swallowed, you know since 1991 they put something on the order of $127 million into funding "grass roots" denier groups, hijacked the TEA party to stop any legislation dealing with climate change, this after the 1989 speech by then VP HW Bush saying we can and we will do something to combat these changes. In the good ole USA the Republican party has toed the line about denying climate change, if they didn't the Koch brothers sent them home. 

You may be a thinker, a critical thinker you are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

For me this stood out. "Hayhoe herself is most excited by the efforts of Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors and founder of SpaceX. “If I had to pick one person to save the world—and I don’t think any one person will but if I had to pick one—it would be him.” She is excited about the battery packs that Tesla is developing, declaring energy storage the “single technology that will make the most difference.” 

I drive electric so I have skin in the game. A Tesla battery is made from some of the nastiest crap on the planet. The local carbon footprint may go down but the global one sure doesn't. Space X? how many tons of CO2 is literally blasted into the atmosphere every time he launches one... Not exactly carbon neutral... 

If her concerns are legitimate, then Elon Musk must be viewed as a climate war criminal.  How much destruction of our planet did he cause by that stunt where put the Tesla into orbit?  These people are emitting huge amounts of CO2, and they get a big pass by the climate clowns. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

At the up coming UN climate summit various nations like Australia and Japan will be prevented from speaking because they are expanding coal fired power. China and India however will speak.

0BeYGDN.png

 

China is adding, in the next year, as much coal capacity as the US has in its entire coal fleet.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Nah mate. they're selling this shit called "coal" like it's going out of fashion at the moment and I got more work than a dildo in a home for retired spinster's.

But cash is king, brudda.

So what, you shut the business down to work for the mines?

They using you for WH&S?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 3to1 said:

you're a dipshit. as a climate scientist, the woman is on the front lines and has no political agenda here. the huge amounts of data she processes and has intimate knowledge of, doesn't support your moronic stance. at all. in the least.

wake your right-winger clown ass up, 'warbird'.

Tell me where it atops being an OP ED,  i will go look at that  section.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, warbird said:

Tell me where it atops being an OP ED,  i will go look at that  section.

she's wholly credible, her 'op-ed' here is more than worthy of serious consideration (and you already know this, you contrarian fool).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aus government is suppressing the real # of deaths, aren't they? 

I wonder if you could make a flying fox wing shade umbrella for these increasingly hotter days.  Or flying fox wing hand fans.  Or do like Copenhagen (European green capital 2014, on track to be carbon neutral by 2025) with stray cats - burn them for energy!  

Also, your boy above writes for National Geofuckingraphic? Aren't they on par with Popular Mechanics?  You know, doctors office crap, and "not very sciencey"? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2019 at 11:06 PM, cmilliken said:

Hopefully the embrace of  science will extend to the solution as well as the problem. 

In general the science is reasonably settled. Certainly there are details to be worked out, but things are warming. Surely it is now time to remove the money from the climate folk and move it on to those looking for a solution.

Perhaps the real problem is that there is no viable solution in sight. We can achieve small improvements here and there, but they are overcome by underdeveloped countries catching up. So we debate how much sea-level rise we can fit on the head of a pin and pretend things are going in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Shortest, coolest  summer in upper mid west since 1620.......

Hottest longest summer in North Florida on record...... And there was no "Upper mid west" in 1620, fuck nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gissie said:

In general the science is reasonably settled. Certainly there are details to be worked out, but things are warming. Surely it is now time to remove the money from the climate folk and move it on to those looking for a solution.

Perhaps the real problem is that there is no viable solution in sight. We can achieve small improvements here and there, but they are overcome by underdeveloped countries catching up. So we debate how much sea-level rise we can fit on the head of a pin and pretend things are going in the right direction.

There are solutions :)  Most of it is actually just good ole fashioned math and engineering but there is some good science to be done.

Nuclear needs to be dramatically increased.  A much more robust power distribution network with load sharing agreements and more ultrahigh voltage runs need to be built.  International agreements on sharing of power north to south need to be hammered out to help ameliorate seasonal shifts.  Governments should release all patents and trade protections on heat exchanger design below 10 kW.  More plastic in building, less concrete.  More paper in packaging, less plastic.  Removal of restrictions on gasification and incineration technologies.  International agreements to allow for subsidies on fuel to be removed.  Taxes on all non-plant proteins.  Release of most patents on GMO crops that are resistant to harsher climates and encouraging more diversity in grains.  Increase biofuel research and production into non-food grade oils such as jatropha, croatin, and eucalyptus.  Redesign of cities to reduce urban density and allow for more natural cooling.  There's literally hundreds of little changes that are going to be necessary.  But this will disrupt the status quo and the powers that be ARE the status quo.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

There are solutions :)  Most of it is actually just good ole fashioned math and engineering but there is some good science to be done.

Nuclear needs to be dramatically increased.  A much more robust power distribution network with load sharing agreements and more ultrahigh voltage runs need to be build.  International agreements on sharing of power north to south need to be hammered out to help ameliorate seasonal shifts.  Governments should release all patents and trade protections onheat exchanger design below 10 kW.  More plastic in building, less concrete.  More paper in packaging, less plastic.  Removal of restrictions on gasification and incineration technologies.  International agreements to allow for subsidies on fuel to be removed.  Taxes on all non-plant proteins.  Release of most patents on GMO crops that are resistant to harsher climates and encouraging more diversity in grains.  Increase biofuel research and production into non-food grade oils such as jatropha, croatin, and eucalyptus.  Redesign of cities to reduce urban density and allow for more natural cooling.  There's literally hundreds of little changes that are going to be necessary.  But this will disrupt the status quo and the powers that be ARE the status quo.

 

Sorry, I meant solutions that would be acceptable to those that will make the decisions. :)

Our idea of society and how our system works will need to be changed before most of your suggestions could be implemented. Which just leads back to your last sentence again. Things will need to become far worse than they are before anything real happens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cmilliken said:
43 minutes ago, Gissie said:

In general the science is reasonably settled. Certainly there are details to be worked out, but things are warming. Surely it is now time to remove the money from the climate folk and move it on to those looking for a solution.

Perhaps the real problem is that there is no viable solution in sight. We can achieve small improvements here and there, but they are overcome by underdeveloped countries catching up. So we debate how much sea-level rise we can fit on the head of a pin and pretend things are going in the right direction.

There are solutions :)  Most of it is actually just good ole fashioned math and engineering but there is some good science to be done.

Nuclear needs to be dramatically increased.  A much more robust power distribution network with load sharing agreements and more ultrahigh voltage runs need to be build.  International agreements on sharing of power north to south need to be hammered out to help ameliorate seasonal shifts.  Governments should release all patents and trade protections onheat exchanger design below 10 kW.  More plastic in building, less concrete.  More paper in packaging, less plastic.  Removal of restrictions on gasification and incineration technologies.  International agreements to allow for subsidies on fuel to be removed.  Taxes on all non-plant proteins.  Release of most patents on GMO crops that are resistant to harsher climates and encouraging more diversity in grains.  Increase biofuel research and production into non-food grade oils such as jatropha, croatin, and eucalyptus.  Redesign of cities to reduce urban density and allow for more natural cooling.  There's literally hundreds of little changes that are going to be necessary.  But this will disrupt the status quo and the powers that be ARE the status quo.

 

A couple of things we have to do to start- one is to change our own attitudes, our habits to the extent we can, and try to shift our culture to have it be cool to actually care. Another is to recognize that there's no one-minute fix, no magic bullet, no easy solution. Many will say "well then fuck it! Let it all ride!" and the temptation is strong to go with this message. Rather than argue, just set a good example and try to use persuasion.

There are a lot of things we can do now, including demanding that our politicians take the problem seriously. Drive less. Turn your heat/air conditioning down. Stop using pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer on your lawn... in fact think seriously about planting more trees and having less lawn. yes this will make a tiny difference but if every suburban homeowner in America, Canada, England, Scotland, France, Germany, Australia, etc etc, planted one tree, it would add up to a lot.

Don't use plastic packaging. There is lower-energy paper but it's not common in the market (at least, around here) and it's not as pretty but it uses less energy and less water.

Don't underestimate the power of culture. Why the fuck do Americans have to drive around in big-ass trucks and SUVs? If everybody woke up tomorrow and suddenly it was not cool to waste energy and smog the air, that would be a big step in the right direction.

More efficient power grid, yes.... in the US we need to rebuild anyway.

We need the public to get started doing what common sense suggests, plus push for new better answers.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Sorry, I meant solutions that would be acceptable to those that will make the decisions. :)

Our idea of society and how our system works will need to be changed before most of your suggestions could be implemented. Which just leads back to your last sentence again. Things will need to become far worse than they are before anything real happens.

This is part of what pisses me off.... it's supposed to be US that makes the goddam decisions!

What we need to realize is that this is one of those issues where not making a decision, is a decision. And when the results become obvious, it will be far too late.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

This is part of what pisses me off.... it's supposed to be US that makes the goddam decisions!

What we need to realize is that this is one of those issues where not making a decision, is a decision. And when the results become obvious, it will be far too late.

- DSK

It isn't us that makes the decisions and to believe we do is naive. We get to vote every now and again to put some people in charge. That is about it. Once they are in we are out of the process.

I agree with your last sentence. Until things go tits up those in charge will prevaricate and miss-direct. We can make our little bits, but that's all it is, little bits. Certainly not an actual answer, just a bit of feel good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

There are solutions :)  Most of it is actually just good ole fashioned math and engineering but there is some good science to be done.

Nuclear needs to be dramatically increased.  A much more robust power distribution network with load sharing agreements and more ultrahigh voltage runs need to be built.  International agreements on sharing of power north to south need to be hammered out to help ameliorate seasonal shifts.  Governments should release all patents and trade protections on heat exchanger design below 10 kW.  More plastic in building, less concrete.  More paper in packaging, less plastic.  Removal of restrictions on gasification and incineration technologies.  International agreements to allow for subsidies on fuel to be removed.  Taxes on all non-plant proteins.  Release of most patents on GMO crops that are resistant to harsher climates and encouraging more diversity in grains.  Increase biofuel research and production into non-food grade oils such as jatropha, croatin, and eucalyptus.  Redesign of cities to reduce urban density and allow for more natural cooling.  There's literally hundreds of little changes that are going to be necessary.  But this will disrupt the status quo and the powers that be ARE the status quo.

 

More plastic in building?   Recycled?   I know concrete has a huge footprint but it resists UV and eventually turns back to sand.   Wood, especially sap free rapidly grown farmed trees rot easily.     My maple framed old house with chestnut planking was solid at 125.    Nearby houses of similar age shrugged off a f1 tornado, though the newer additions of pine and oriented strand board were ripped apart.    Steel of course rusts.    Brick sucks in earthquakes.   No material is perfect.   So far few bacteria digest plastic, but it dries and gets brittle.   Construction waste and obsolete buildings will have the same problem as abandoned boats.  It seems limited.    I’m suspicious engineered beams will lose strength before the first century is up, ignoring the health benefits of isocyanates.   Please explain.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, warbird said:

Shortest, coolest  summer in upper mid west since 1620.......

Not sure where the mid west is to you,but didn't they have record rain falls and a big down turn in harvests,and sadly it seems like a record number of farmers

commited suicide?

I retired 12 years ago to god's waiting room , and most summer days were in the low 90's , well this year we have had a least 2 months at or near 100.

Interesting to see what a 20FT storm surge can do!

In this Wednesday photo, extensive damage from Hurricane Dorian can be seen over the Elbow Reef Lighthouse in Hope Town on Elbow Cay.

also didn't parts of the world have unbelieveable heat waves , ie: France Germany UK Green land? Isn't Greenland where all those Ice cubes are melting?

Yes weather is where your at but climate change is the whole planet

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Do tell. What exactly the fuck is "worse" about today's climate than 20, 50, 100, 200 or whatever years ago?

 

We just had 2 1,000 year floods in 2 years. Does that count? Since you weren't flooded I suppose it doesn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Do tell. What exactly the fuck is "worse" about today's climate than 20, 50, 100, 200 or whatever years ago?

 

Seems about the same to me as when I was younger, although the seasons seem to have slipped a month or so. But why would I notice such a small change and that is the problem. The numbers show that things are changing, manmade or not, and that they appear to be doing it faster than we can find records for in the past. What is causing it may still have some debate left in it, but things are warming up. 

So back to my point, the change is small and easily brushed off when the answer needs to involve big changes, world wide, to achieve anything worth while. Those that need to get things moving are sitting pretty at present and have no desire to rock their sweet little apple cart. For that to happen things will need to reach a point where the cart has been tipped over and they are struggling to get back in charge. 

This is just my opinion of course and so feel free to chuck some thoughtful insults if you wish. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

We just had 2 1,000 year floods in 2 years. Does that count? Since you weren't flooded I suppose it doesn't matter.

...... Not to mention the perfectly normal Spring bushfires in Toecutter’s home state of Queensland:

https://www.ruralfire.qld.gov.au/map/Pages/default.aspx

But don’t worry, they will be put out by the perfectly normal cyclones and floods in Queensland a bit later on.......

I have genuine sympathy for those affected by all of these events, but absolutely none for those who, especially if impacted by them. cannot recognise that the increasing global scale of environmental pollution and destruction in pursuit of infinite economic growth on a finite planet with finite resources and a finite natural life sustaining  environment is impossible and must be urgently addressed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toecutter said:

No lollies for you either. Floods, droughts and bush fires aren't anything new in this brown parched land.

 No one is saying that they are, it is the extent, frequency and ferocity we are talking about. No lollies for you either for shifting the goal posts.... 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/20/564941990/scientists-glimpse-houstons-flooded-future-in-updated-rainfall-data

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, toecutter said:

No insults. Show me the numbers.

What numbers are you after. Pretty much all scientist agree the climate is warming, the reasons are still being fought over (debate and reason has been long abandoned). Considering the small size of the change, one side look like dicks when they claim everything is caused by climate change and the other side look like dicks when they claim nothing is happening. 

The reality is that climate is only part of the problem. What will happen when all the billions living in under developed countries want what we have. Is there enough clean energy for all the billion new air cons, fridges, hot water heaters etc. Are there going to be enough resources for all the billions of high tech bits they will want. How about electric cars, can we make the billion more cars for them and could they develop the power to charge them. Can they reach our level without destroying things before climate change gets its turn. Can we ask them not to. Look at the hand wringing about the fires in the Amazon. Lots of demands for them to just stop, but no-one is willing to stump up the billions it would take to make it worth their while. So they don’t. Fair enough, we are where we are from doing the same sort of thing, just long ago. 

So until things go really tits up most of us will pick a side and throw shit at each other and pretend we are getting somewhere. If/when it goes tits up we may be able to push the reset button on human society and sort things out. However I doubt it. The very traits we have as humans has lead us to this point (success and failure) and are  born in us and can only be modified, short term, at the point of a gun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, toecutter said:

I'm not shifting nothing, but it appears those you believe are. Can I suggest that you search YouTube for "Tony Heller". You may be in for a surprise.

 

1 hour ago, Sidecar said:

I have genuine sympathy for those affected by all of these events, but absolutely none for those who, especially if impacted by them. cannot recognise that the increasing global scale of environmental pollution and destruction in pursuit of infinite economic growth on a finite planet with finite resources and a finite natural life sustaining  environment is impossible and must be urgently addressed.

Yes you did.... Again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, toecutter said:
8 hours ago, Gissie said:

 

Do tell. What exactly the fuck is "worse" about today's climate than 20, 50, 100, 200 or whatever years ago?

Key points

Australia

  • Australia's climate has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events.
  • Oceans around Australia have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.
  • Sea levels are rising around Australia, increasing the risk of inundation.
  • The oceans around Australia are acidifying (the pH is decreasing).
  • April to October rainfall has decreased in the southwest of Australia. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.
  • There has been a decline of around 11 per cent in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s.
  • Rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.
  • Streamflow has decreased across southern Australia. Streamflow has increased in northern Australia where rainfall has increased.
  • There has been a long-term increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of Australia.

Global

  • Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO 2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO 2 equivalent (CO 2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years.
  • Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2.
  • The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades.
  • Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one.

Future

Australia is projected to experience:

  • Further increases in sea and air temperatures, with more hot days and marine heatwaves, and fewer cool extremes.
  • Further sea level rise and ocean acidification.
  • Decreases in rainfall across southern Australia with more time in drought, but an increase in intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia.
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lark said:

 

More plastic in building?   Recycled?   I know concrete has a huge footprint but it resists UV and eventually turns back to sand.   Wood, especially sap free rapidly grown farmed trees rot easily.     My maple framed old house with chestnut planking was solid at 125.    Nearby houses of similar age shrugged off a f1 tornado, though the newer additions of pine and oriented strand board were ripped apart.    Steel of course rusts.    Brick sucks in earthquakes.   No material is perfect.   So far few bacteria digest plastic, but it dries and gets brittle.   Construction waste and obsolete buildings will have the same problem as abandoned boats.  It seems limited.    I’m suspicious engineered beams will lose strength before the first century is up, ignoring the health benefits of isocyanates.   Please explain.    

There's two big problems and a lot of little ones with concrete - the energy required to make it and general durability over time, mostly from freeze/thaw.  It's also heavy and not particularly good against shock and vibration.  Also, you don't actually WANT buildings and structures to deteriorate over time and when you do decide to get rid of a building, there's a process for collecting all the materials.  That's why I said 'more plastic, less concrete'.

Conceptually, we do the same thing with concrete that we do with beef.  We start with food (the precursor products), put it into a process (ie.,. the cow) and create something that tastes great and grills wonderfully because that's what we do.   Or we could just eat the food directly on occasional and use less beef?  We get limestone and clay, crush it, screen it, cook it with hydrocarbons, crush it again, combine some more, then ship it and a bunch of other rocks to a facility where we then add water and shoo it off to the construction site.   Then it's reinforced with steel (which is made in much the same way) to offset some of the features of concrete we don't like.  And then we paint and seal or cover it up with more stuff because it'll degrade if we don't.

So why do we use it?  Mostly convenience and training.  We know how to design with it.  Work crews know how to pour and flow it.  But most importantly, because we have decades of building codes that know how to inspect it.  That's not a joke.  I've been on two projects now that the single largest impediment wasn't technical, it was how to get certified because there weren't existing codes.  That's why you'll often see energy projects demonstrated on military bases and on existing brown sites, even if they're stupid applications.  You can't change codes without proof and you can't get proof without demonstrations therefore...

Estimates put the carbon emissions of concrete manufacturing at about 5 percent (numbers vary depending on how you count shipping mostly) of the total world emissions.  We're going to need to get a couple points from there eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There's two big problems and a lot of little ones with concrete - the energy required to make it and general durability over time, mostly from freeze/thaw.  It's also heavy and not particularly good against shock and vibration.  Also, you don't actually WANT buildings and structures to deteriorate over time and when you do decide to get rid of a building, there's a process for collecting all the materials.  That's why I said 'more plastic, less concrete'.

Conceptually, we do the same thing with concrete that we do with beef.  We start with food (the precursor products), put it into a process (ie.,. the cow) and create something that tastes great and grills wonderfully because that's what we do.   Or we could just eat the food directly on occasional and use less beef?  We get limestone and clay, crush it, screen it, cook it with hydrocarbons, crush it again, combine some more, then ship it and a bunch of other rocks to a facility where we then add water and shoo it off to the construction site.   Then it's reinforced with steel (which is made in much the same way) to offset some of the features of concrete we don't like.  And then we paint and seal or cover it up with more stuff because it'll degrade if we don't.

So why do we use it?  Mostly convenience and training.  We know how to design with it.  Work crews know how to pour and flow it.  But most importantly, because we have decades of building codes that know how to inspect it.  That's not a joke.  I've been on two projects now that the single largest impediment wasn't technical, it was how to get certified because there weren't existing codes.  That's why you'll often see energy projects demonstrated on military bases and on existing brown sites, even if they're stupid applications.  You can't change codes without proof and you can't get proof without demonstrations therefore...

Estimates put the carbon emissions of concrete manufacturing at about 5 percent (numbers vary depending on how you count shipping mostly) of the total world emissions.  We're going to need to get a couple points from there eventually.

Excellent, thanks. Have seen some of this but not put it together.

A lot of what we've done to improve everything from construction materials to fabric to candy wrappers (it's not your imagination, they really are tougher now) has been to pump a shitload of cheap energy into it. That's bad for the environment, especially when the product (like candy wrappers) is now a problem for the environment after it's been used.

Product lifecycle is not something we've thought about much, until recently.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, warbird said:

Shortest, coolest  summer in upper mid west since 1620.......

Wow, I almost missed this little gem

Do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer before you sit down at your computer, so you can write these extra-stupid posts?

Let's see, "coolest since 1620" now who was measuring the temperatures in upper mid west in 1620?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There's two big problems and a lot of little ones with concrete - the energy required to make it and general durability over time, mostly from freeze/thaw.  It's also heavy and not particularly good against shock and vibration.  Also, you don't actually WANT buildings and structures to deteriorate over time and when you do decide to get rid of a building, there's a process for collecting all the materials.  That's why I said 'more plastic, less concrete'.

Conceptually, we do the same thing with concrete that we do with beef.  We start with food (the precursor products), put it into a process (ie.,. the cow) and create something that tastes great and grills wonderfully because that's what we do.   Or we could just eat the food directly on occasional and use less beef?  We get limestone and clay, crush it, screen it, cook it with hydrocarbons, crush it again, combine some more, then ship it and a bunch of other rocks to a facility where we then add water and shoo it off to the construction site.   Then it's reinforced with steel (which is made in much the same way) to offset some of the features of concrete we don't like.  And then we paint and seal or cover it up with more stuff because it'll degrade if we don't.

So why do we use it?  Mostly convenience and training.  We know how to design with it.  Work crews know how to pour and flow it.  But most importantly, because we have decades of building codes that know how to inspect it.  That's not a joke.  I've been on two projects now that the single largest impediment wasn't technical, it was how to get certified because there weren't existing codes.  That's why you'll often see energy projects demonstrated on military bases and on existing brown sites, even if they're stupid applications.  You can't change codes without proof and you can't get proof without demonstrations therefore...

Estimates put the carbon emissions of concrete manufacturing at about 5 percent (numbers vary depending on how you count shipping mostly) of the total world emissions.  We're going to need to get a couple points from there eventually.

Could you give me examples you like?   My concern is from other tech adaptions I’ve seen in home construction.    There is a builder in Greenwood Indiana that used engineered plywood beams for garage door headers in the 1980s.  20 years later you could identify all his houses by the sag.   I helped a guy jack up the joists and replace his header with yellow pine.    It was a big job created by poor material choice.    Another builder in south Fort Wayne used pressure treated plywood as foundation walls.   I saw estimates his houses had a 40 or 50 year lifespan and were disposable.   I googled engineered beams.   They give a working life as 80 plus years.   Does that mean demolition after that?    An uncle’s  condo had some precursor to PEX plumbing.   It was good as built but the pipes got brittle and had to be entirely replaced after a quarter century.   My current house has rubber flex fittings between all the cast drain pipes, buried in the walls.   We know what happens to a radiator hose after a few years.    The same thing happened to my plumbing after 40 years.   Everybody here knows how horrible a plastic boat fire is.    I’m trying to wrap my mind around plastic buildings as a good thing.    We know the limitations of old technology.   Since buildings are expected to last, unknown limitations of new technology are relevant and I’m very conservative. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a guy named David Stone who has also developed a concrete that needs CO2 in its process, sequistrating the CO2.

you'll have to google ‘David Stone Concrete CO2 sequistration’ To find info on it, since everything I’ve found won’t post on PA.  Weird.

Actually, there are quite a few concretes that sequistrate CO2.  I really believe our science is sophisticated enough to solve global warming essentially through weather control.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

1989 VP Bush in a speech talks about the danger of climate change and the US will work to address it, not long after thanks to the KOCH brothers $127million dollar funding of multiple denier 'grass roots' groups the GOP flips they hijack the TEA party and the D's, liberals, Al Gore and climate change are the enemy. Both presidents Clinton and Obama stressed the need to address climate change and the impact of globalization/automation by making it a thing - you know, like the space race - put the best and brightest empowered and funded for R&D to deal with the coming changes. I think we know how that all turned out.

crickets and propaganda.

What makes a difference? Innovation and technology driven by enterprise and supported by government funded when needed. Being the half full glass guy that I am I still think it will happen, unfortunately after we have tried everything else.

Forget about rants like Jeffie is doing in his latest "LOOK AT ME" thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, toecutter said:

No you can't. But when the adage "be careful what you wish for" lands on your doorstep, don't say you weren't warned.

Since I wished i would never be your neighbor I am probably good to go.  But thanks for the concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, toecutter said:

Really? There's a dummies book for that? What fuckhead would spend money on that? Aside from you, of course.

I am bright enough to not need it yet also to recognize those who do. It also seems like you are lonely - there are apps for that. Or so I have heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:
  • Improved standard of living
  • Less deaths through war
  • Increased agricultural yields
  • Reduction in infant mortality
  • Increased life spans
  • Increased population
  • Political stability
  • And on and on and on.

You can thank the significant contribution of energy, generated in all its forms, for the above.

These “contributions” have benefitted only a very small part of the world’s population. They are unsustainable in their present form, never mind extending them to the rest of the world. The jury is still out on the ultimate price all of humanity will have to pay, depending on how long global corporations, politicians and people like yourself procrastinate and prevaricate. Life will go on, but it certainly won’t be as rosy and balmy as you all think.

1 hour ago, toecutter said:

I'm not claiming climate change isn't happening. I'm not claiming it's all natural. What I'm claiming is it aint the end of the world. I personally enjoy a balmy environment. The cold's for polar bears and penguins.

So you are all for more extremes in fires, desertification, floods, cyclones and sea level rises, never mind the pollution, environmental destruction and species extinction that go with with it.... even maybe, polar bears and penguins?

And there is no human suffering in any of this, only beneficial contribution?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, toecutter said:

You know, I could carry on like some loonie high on crack and post a bunch of copy and paste graphs with associated mindless ranting too. But instead I'll summarise a counter argument using some random (lol) factoids:

  • Improved standard of living
  • Less deaths through war
  • Increased agricultural yields
  • Reduction in infant mortality
  • Increased life spans
  • Increased population
  • Political stability
  • And on and on and on.

You can thank the significant contribution of energy, generated in all its forms, for the above.

 

Nice, I post science, you post shit you made up

Hahahahahaaaa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

  1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
  2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
  3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
  4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
  5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
  6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
  7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
  8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
  9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
  10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
  11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
  12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
  13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
  14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
  15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
  16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
  17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
  18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
  19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
  20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
  21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
  22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
  23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
  24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
  25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
  26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
  27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
  28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
  29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
  30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
  31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
  32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
  33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
  34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
  35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
  36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
  37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
  38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
  39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
  40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
  41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding.

This piece has been updated to correct a duplicate posting and add another hoax prediction.  

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wow, I almost missed this little gem

Do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer before you sit down at your computer, so you can write these extra-stupid posts?

Let's see, "coolest since 1620" now who was measuring the temperatures in upper mid west in 1620?

- DSK

It is a gem. It has all the flavor of a bullshit  ranDumberthandingoshit post doesn't it.  :lol:. jzk just put to rest warming in #3223.  If warmistas can put bullshit out there, why cant I?

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, warbird said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Wow, I almost missed this little gem

Do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer before you sit down at your computer, so you can write these extra-stupid posts?

Let's see, "coolest since 1620" now who was measuring the temperatures in upper mid west in 1620?

 

It is a gem. It has all the flavor of a bullshit  ranDumberthandingoshit post doesn't it.  :lol:. jzk just put to rest warming in #3223.  If warmistas can put bullshit out there, why cant I?

Aside from the fact that JZK cannot read a graph, and his posted graphs don't say anything remotely like what he thinks they say (apparently you can't either), if you want people to believe your bullshit then you have to be sincere. Cynical, yeah-I'm-lying-so-what bullshit doesn't work on anybody but people stupid & gullible enough to be Trumpalos in the first place.

So, no. Might as well give up, honestly. I'm telling you this as a favor

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Aside from the fact that JZK cannot read a graph, and his posted graphs don't say anything remotely like what he thinks they say (apparently you can't either), if you want people to believe your bullshit then you have to be sincere. Cynical, yeah-I'm-lying-so-what bullshit doesn't work on anybody but people stupid & gullible enough to be Trumpalos in the first place.

So, no. Might as well give up, honestly. I'm telling you this as a favor

- DSK

 

Please tell us what they do say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toecutter said:

Lonely aye? So says the bloke with 23000+ posts. Oh, I'm sure you've more than "heard" about those apps. Are you going to offer me a review of your favourite apps in addition to your favourite books, too?

If you aren't lonely why do you keep replying to me? As to my post count I only have one ID, what's your cumulative total?  I don't have any favorite apps just thought I would try to help a brother out. If I could only suggest one book it would be To Kill A Mockingbird. 

Your welcome

 

@BravoBravo - well done, I mean the Competitive Enterprise Institute - a Libertarian paradise trying to do away with stupid shit like the EPA and promotes the old Free Markets Free People.

Like the good old days when industry dictated and polluted and poisoned everything. YCMTSU

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, garuda3 said:

You can't fix stupid, but ............ God will fix it , ........as their home float away

Ground Zero on the Chesapeke MD. 

 

The island of Tangier is sinking.  The land is going down.  I wonder how Hillary would have reversed that natural phenomenon had she been elected. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jzk said:

The island of Tangier is sinking.  The land is going down.  I wonder how Hillary would have reversed that natural phenomenon had she been elected. 

Here is a ref.  Yeah, it's a blog but there is a link that is useful

https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2015/07/29/usgs-the-chesapeake-bay-region-is-sinking-while-the-sea-rises/

Sea level is rising rapidly around the Chesapeake Bay. Faster actually, than nearly any other place on the East Coast of North America, and only a few spots along the Gulf Coast are recording a faster rate. The reason has been suspected for quite a while, but now a new study published in the journal of the Geological Society of America has confirmed the cause, and the news is not good. The paper  is titled Pleistocene Sea Levels in The Chesapeake Bay Region and Their Implications for the Next Century. You can can read the entire paper here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Here is a ref.  Yeah, it's a blog but there is a link that is useful

https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2015/07/29/usgs-the-chesapeake-bay-region-is-sinking-while-the-sea-rises/

Sea level is rising rapidly around the Chesapeake Bay. Faster actually, than nearly any other place on the East Coast of North America, and only a few spots along the Gulf Coast are recording a faster rate. The reason has been suspected for quite a while, but now a new study published in the journal of the Geological Society of America has confirmed the cause, and the news is not good. The paper  is titled Pleistocene Sea Levels in The Chesapeake Bay Region and Their Implications for the Next Century. You can can read the entire paper here.

"Thus, isostatically driven subsidence of the Chesapeake Bay region will continue for millennia, exacerbating the effects of global sea-level rise and impacting the region’s large population centers and valuable coastal natural resources."

Thank you for posting that in confirmation of my point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

"Thus, isostatically driven subsidence of the Chesapeake Bay region will continue for millennia, exacerbating the effects of global sea-level rise and impacting the region’s large population centers and valuable coastal natural resources."

Thank you for posting that in confirmation of my point.  

And, as to the "rapid increase in sea level rise"

8575512_meantrend.png

Find your own at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

The island of Tangier is sinking.  The land is going down.  I wonder how Hillary would have reversed that natural phenomenon had she been elected. 

Correct me if I'm wrong , But Trump is Potus and leader of our great country , It's his job to take care of all american's , What he's spending on the Wall, could easily fix the problem of Tangier with money to spare. Even the people of Tangier said they need a SEA wall!

Hillary is just a grand mother in NY , so it's Not her Job ! so why even bring her up?

I love you trump lovers, will praise him when things go good which are ???? , but it's others fault when he fails, I guess that why he keeps firing everyone that works for him!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites