Question Climate Change: Where do you stand? (1 Viewer)

[ndcc]

So, again, where are you getting your data from ?
You stated the value of C02 was X in 1979. What/who measured that?
What/who measured the data of today you are using for your comparison?

It's amazing that you'd question official information that was used by the Dept. of Defense to teach our military back in '79... unless you are calling me a liar.

Our official information on CO2 back in '79 (...used way before the present day uproar) was 0.04%. Today, that number has not changed appreciably.

However, you and others have every right to doubt it.

I stand by the information put forth in the OP-ED article.

 

[dtc]

It's amazing that you'd question official information that was used by the Dept. of Defense to teach our military back in '79... unless you are calling me a liar.

Our official information on CO2 back in '79 (...used way before the present day uproar) was 0.04%. Today, that number has not changed appreciably.

However, you and others have every right to doubt it.

I stand by the information put forth in the OP-ED article.

Maybe Oye or someone else feels like discussing your use of the term "appreciably."

I already understand what your article's intent was.

Lots of things said in 1979 have been revised. I was 10. I thought the moon was made of cheese and that Santa Claus was real.

 

[ndcc]

Lots of things said in 1979 have been revised.

Really?

How then would data from 1979 be reevaluated and revised? Could the atmospheric samples be re-measured? Also, if you question 1979 data, how then could anyone infer that data prior to that is reliable enough to be used for a comparison (from then to now)?

 

[zeetes]

i thought this would be a pole. i was so ready to vote tacoes.

i wish humidity was more than known as not only a part of life, but at a steady comfortable ratio of 50ish%. yeah, probably won't ever happen.

yeah, yeah, blah blah wishing for consistency in humidity. i'm probably considered dumb or wtf, but understand, at a consistent 50%, we wouldn't worry about taking a shower and sweating our arses off if we go outside too quickly after (bodies could actually adjust), could wear clothing you know would be comfortable in the sweaty heat, or just to have a better idea of what the fork the weather (comfort level on top of temperature) will be like for the day.

yeah, sometimes, i am optimistic.

 

[dtc]

Really?

How then would data from 1979 be reevaluated and revised? Could the atmospheric samples be re-measured? Also, if you question 1979 data, how then could anyone infer that data prior to that is reliable enough to be used for a comparison (from then to now)?

That's not what I said. What I said is that your article isn't scientific. It's political. It's intended as a hit piece against a proposed solution to a problem you seem to believe does not exist.

 

[ndcc]

That's not what I said. What I said is that your article isn't scientific. It's political. It's intended as a hit piece against a proposed solution to a problem you seem to believe does not exist.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Again, I stand by the information in my OP-ED column.

 

[ndcc]

i thought this would be a pole. i was so ready to vote tacoes.

i wish humidity was more than known as not only a part of life, but at a steady comfortable ratio of 50ish%. yeah, probably won't ever happen.

yeah, yeah, blah blah wishing for consistency in humidity. i'm probably considered dumb or What the Fork!, but understand, at a consistent 50%, we wouldn't worry about taking a shower and sweating our arses off if we go outside too quickly after (bodies could actually adjust), could wear clothing you know would be comfortable in the sweaty heat, or just to have a better idea of what the fork the weather (comfort level on top of temperature) will be like for the day.

yeah, sometimes, i am optimistic.

Humidity is more accurately referred to as RELATIVE humidity. That's because the amount of moisture air can hold (expressed in grams of moisture to kiligrams of dry air) is dependent on its temperature.

A change of twenty Fahrenheit degrees in temperature will either cut in half OR double the air's moisture holding capacity. For instance, air that is saturated at 80F will have to lose half of its moisture when it is cooled to 60F.

Air that is saturated at 60F has a relative humidity of 100%. But if you increase its temperature to 70F (while keeping the same moisture content), the relative humidity decreases to 75%. If that same air is heated to 80F, the relative humidity would decrease to 50%.

 

[You]

All the changes you've mentioned have made a huge difference. Big trucks get 20 mpg as opposed to 8. Our big old houses cost less to heat and cool now than 5 years ago even though energy has gone up. Lake Pontchartrain has fish everywhere when 40 years ago the brown pelicans were endangered and the place was a near dead zone.

Our country has far more people than 40 years ago, yet we have not increased our impact over that time. We just have to keep doing things that reduce our impact and do what we can so that others follow suit.

For the life of me, I haven't figured out why people haven't been crazy trying to get to renewables for electricity. Solar, wind and hydroelectric generators of all sorts are great alternatives. Every day the GE plant up the street from me ships out dozens of gigantic windmill assemblies. Most are headed overseas.

I don't know their names. Who are they?


This is not one of those instant gratification instances, like "I'm hungry, I eat a Sneakers, I'm good" type thing. It is something that happens gradually over time.

There is no question that climate changes on its own, but what we have seen since the advent of the industrial revolution, is an unprecedented acceleration of this change, and and we are not giving ourselves or our environment enough time to acclimate to the changes. We are not that bad now, but we are going downhill fast. And I mean fast in the sense of geological time. Your 40 or so years of life are insignificant in that scale... and yet, all of what we have done (using more efficient light bulbs, hvacs, cars) has made a difference. But there isn't the one thing that's going to fix everything. It is a number of things, over a period of time.

yea, I know. That’s why I used the time frame as a point of reference. We’ve been at this for over 40 years. I’ve already made changes to my lifestyle and passed the habits on to the next generation. When is it going to start making the improvement we were promised?

 

[You]

All the changes you've mentioned have made a huge difference. Big trucks get 20 mpg as opposed to 8. Our big old houses cost less to heat and cool now than 5 years ago even though energy has gone up. Lake Pontchartrain has fish everywhere when 40 years ago the brown pelicans were endangered and the place was a near dead zone.

Our country has far more people than 40 years ago, yet we have not increased our impact over that time. We just have to keep doing things that reduce our impact and do what we can so that others follow suit.

For the life of me, I haven't figured out why people haven't been crazy trying to get to renewables for electricity. Solar, wind and hydroelectric generators of all sorts are great alternatives. Every day the GE plant up the street from me ships out dozens of gigantic windmill assemblies. Most are headed overseas.

I have no problem with you believing in manmade climate change. I’d just hope that you live your life aligned with your belief.

You’ve been one to post over the years about your big yacht, cadillac escalades, big house, and other creature comforts that make for a large footprint.

Maybe you’ve changed all of that. If so, that’s admirable. Otherwise, You get partial credit for good intentions but overall the sentiment rings hollow.

 

[dtc]

I have no problem with you believing in manmade climate change. I’d just hope that you live your life aligned with your belief.

You’ve been one to post over the years about your big yacht, cadillac escalades, big house, and other creature comforts that make for a large footprint.

Maybe you’ve changed all of that. If so, that’s admirable. Otherwise, You get partial credit for good intentions but overall the sentiment rings hollow.

Partial credit is all I deserve. And, for the record, I've never called my boat a yacht. As for the creature comforts and large footprint, I sure don't live in a hovel, but we make it as efficient as it can be.

Personally, I think there's a difference between indiscriminate waste and being as efficient as you can be within a certain set of parameters. My office is a showpiece of efficiency. My house is 50 years old.

 

[dtc]

yea, I know. That’s why I used the time frame as a point of reference. We’ve been at this for over 40 years. I’ve already made changes to my lifestyle and passed the habits on to the next generation. When is it going to start making the improvement we were promised?

Dood. You don't see your efforts as having had an effect? That's too bad.

If you were still burning a 20 year old 8 seer ac you'd be paying twice the amount for power and being less comfortable. You'd be contributing more to pollution than you are. Downsizing the vehicles and efficiency increases have led us to polluting less than 40 years ago with three times the traffic.

Is the Lake still toxic? Is there still smog so thick you can't see LA? Does Bogalusa still smell like Bogalusa in the 70s?

What about your washer and dryer? Fridge? Do they burn the same water and power? No.

You're doing your part.

 

[dtc]

You're entitled to your opinion.

Again, I stand by the information in my OP-ED column.

So do I, but I didn't cloak mine as science.

 

[ndcc]

So do I, but I didn't cloak mine as science.

The word science literally means knowledge. It DOES NOT mean the consensus of opinion.

 

[You]

Dood. You don't see your efforts as having had an effect? That's too bad.

If you were still burning a 20 year old 8 seer ac you'd be paying twice the amount for power and being less comfortable. You'd be contributing more to pollution than you are. Downsizing the vehicles and efficiency increases have led us to polluting less than 40 years ago with three times the traffic.

Is the Lake still toxic? Is there still smog so thick you can't see LA? Does Bogalusa still smell like Bogalusa in the 70s?

What about your washer and dryer? Fridge? Do they burn the same water and power? No.

You're doing your part.

I know I’m doing my part. I know we have cleaner waterways. I know the a/c is more efficient.

So what?

When will it make a difference to the climate?

 

[SystemShock]

It's amazing that you'd question official information that was used by the Dept. of Defense to teach our military back in '79... unless you are calling me a liar.

I am asking you, for the 3rd time, how did you get the data back then (who measured it, how) i n order to ascertain the levels of C02 were .04% back then, how did you get the data today (who measured, how) in order to ascertain that the levels of C02 are still .04% now, and what do you mean but "around".

Our official information on CO2 back in '79 (...used way before the present day uproar) was 0.04%.

Great. As measured by ... ?

Today, that number has not changed appreciably.

Great. As measured by ... ?

However, you and others have every right to doubt it.

Looking at the graph I posted from NASA, if we follow the line, I can estimate that, in 1978, the levels of CO2 (parts per million) would've been close to 335. Today it is over 410. So I am trying to understand where did you get your numbers back then and where are you getting your numbers today to show there has been virtually no change the past 40 years.