The very definition of science is NOT blindness and reading both sides of the debate. Which has always been I'm coming from. Not politicians. Scientists. Evidence. Facts. Reality.
I'm not going anywhere. If your definition of "constructive" is name-calling and Breitbart fake-news, then what I'm contributing is the opposite, yep.
It is settled science. Man's actions have caused significant climate change on a global basis. And that significance grows every day that purveyors of fake news and Breitbart-world buzzwords throw propogandic fiction out there in a sad attempt to distract from the problem.
This whole "it's because [climate change advocates] want to make money off of it" is just nuts to me, especially after reading the history of coal mine owners in West Virginia over the last 100 years. Talk about making money at any human cost, denying freedom, and manipulating politicians, hoo-boy.
We have to move past the stuff that's killing us as a species. It may be a slow death and you and I may be gone before it reaches full tilt, but it's just plain irresponsible to leave it to future generations to clean up.
It's not fun. But it is the grownup thing to do.
JC: You're wasting your precious time on these guys.
Tom
Norm48327People of the liberal persuasion blindly follow.
Really? You really think using a generalization as broad as that helps your argument in any way?
You're better and smarter than than, Norm. Don't stoop.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
ACYYou're wasting your precious time on these guys.
I was thinking the same thing...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
[quote user="Miningman"]I strongly suggest for many of you to drive out to a more rural area, sit on a bench somewhere and take some deep breath's and get some air. Add Quot[/quo
Just not near a "Factory" Hog Farm. Or some Industrial Cattle Feed lots.
Also having seen whats left of some glaciers makes me believe that warming is occurring. Human population is increasing. Our fuel (oil, coal biomass) use is increasing. And yes, I remember back when homes were heated with coal noting how quickly the new fallen snow turned black. Gas burns so much cleaner. But its end product is still CO2.
Lifes a female dog and then we die, but I don't like the alternative. Happy New Year.
T thee who believe mans creation of C02 is going to be the end of the world, please put your money where your mouth is and stop excreting CO2 .
Prove to me that the eruptions of volcanic activity are LESS damaging than mans existence on earth?
Those who deride me for driving "recycled" vehicles please PROVE that your hybrid/electric car makes less pollution than mine? Do no forget the pollution from production and electricity generation. Oh wait you're only concern is nothing comes out of your tailpipe!
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
I'd suggest that when observable weather events occur that can be attributed to man made sources, changes are made to eliminate them. An example is the London smog of December 1952, which was credited for something like 4000 deaths. Thereafter, coal fired generating plants in the London area were redesigned/eliminated as well as other coal burning sources such as steam locomotives.
However, the principal evidence for "climate change", meaning man-made climate change, are computer programs that may or may not reflect the real world. It is difficult for the average person to arrive at an informed conclusion regarding their validity. When instances occur in which historic climate data has been modified to better support a position on this issue, credibility is lost.
At this point climate change has become something approaching a religion to much of the establishment -- to not believe it is to be a "denier"; certainly not a person to be taken seriously nor afforded governmental fiscal support. Yet there are numerous Martin Luthers among us.
Who is correct? I'm not certain, but I believe most minds have picked a position that is not easily modified.
ruderunnerProve to me that the eruptions of volcanic activity are LESS damaging than mans existence on earth?
https://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
"Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that "
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling.
http://www.globalchange.gov/about/legal-mandate
http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change
Dakguy201However, the principal evidence for "climate change", meaning man-made climate change, are computer programs that may or may not reflect the real world. It is difficult for the average person to arrive at an informed conclusion regarding their validity.
Your statement does not reflect any understanding of climatology methodology.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
wanswheel
Passed unanimously by both houses and signed by GHW Bush. That was before certain ideologues turned it into a partisan issue.
The climate change controversy is nothing new; I first learned of it as a sixth-grader, way back in the spring of 1961. And the source was an educational film, though I can't recall the sponsor.
I took a standard meteorology course, one intended for non-science majors, some seven years later as an undergrad, but can recall no mention of CO2 concerns whatsoever, though the subject did surface during the first Earth Day, when I was a "super (fifth-year) senior", with battle lines drawn, regrettably, among the usual centralized-planning vs. market-driven advocacies.
And this, I suspect, is precisely why the argument over climate change has been drawn so deeply into the nation's current polarization. If memory serves me correctly, the dispute began to surface again about ten years ago, and intensified after the "climategate" revelations of 2009 -- centered around the notoriously left-leaning East Anglia University in Great Britain.
My personal home base is in rural Upstate Pennsylvania -- in a community that usually wavers between no stronger than a 60/40 split in either direction between the major parties, but went 4-to-1 for Mr.Trump this time around, and in heavy turnout -- I waited in line to vote for nearly an hour.
Clearly, the arrogance and contempt for rural working-class voters displayed by the "progressive" movement was a prominent factor here, and as with Second Amendment issues, the apparent reluctance of the self-appointed illuminati to soften their stridency might not only produce a backlash, but solidify it.
Personally, I'm quite a bit more willing to listen -- provided that the environmental advocacy stops talking down to those of us who are a little more directly concerned with making ends meet on a daily basis, and refrains from cuddly "polar bear" appeals directed at middle-schoolers and propaganda such as The Carbon Diaries -- which predicted palm trees in a London of 2015, because the targeted teenyboppers have such a poor grasp of time and short span of attention.
.
schlimmYour statement does not reflect any understanding of climatology methodology.
And therein lies the problem. Let's call it a lack of confidence in the methodology that is being used.
As I mentioned earlier - there are well-thought-out systems for predicting the weather - the Canadian model, the European model, the NCEP model, the "rapid refresh" model, GFS, NAM, GFSX, LAMP. If you watch coverage of tropical storms, each model seems to deliver a different track, leading to maps with a lot of lines showing potential tracks for the storm.
If the models are all accurate, why don't they all come out with the same track? Because different people created the models, with different concepts of how the dynamics of the atmosphere work.
And so it is with the "climate change" models.
It appears to many that the only folks who find those climate change models accurate are those who stand to gain by them.
tree68 schlimm And therein lies the problem. Let's call it a lack of confidence in the methodology that is being used. As I mentioned earlier - there are well-thought-out systems for predicting the weather - the Canadian model, the European model, the NCEP model, the "rapid refresh" model, GFS, NAM, GFSX, LAMP. If you watch coverage of tropical storms, each model seems to deliver a different track, leading to maps with a lot of lines showing potential tracks for the storm. If the models are all accurate, why don't they all come out with the same track? Because different people created the models, with different concepts of how the dynamics of the atmosphere work. And so it is with the "climate change" models. It appears to many that the only folks who find those climate change models accurate are those who stand to gain by them.
schlimm
When it comes to mathmatical models to represent physical occurences, every model makes 'assumptions' in how and to what degree measurable element interact and react with each other - thus the different outcomes that the models predict.
When it comes to mathmatical models, we have yet to create a 'perfect' model for predicing the performance of a NFL quarterback. Weather and Climate changes are slightly more demanding.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
My viewpoint is that global warming theory is based on computer modeling. The computers are designed by man with the programming for the global warming modeling performed by man. The data that is input into this modeling is also done by man. Similar modeling used by the weather service is not very accurate for predicting 2 weeks out and even miss on a 24 hour basis regularly.Other modeling can not even predict the total number and severity of hurricanes each year, much less tell where one will hit within a hundred miles 36 hours out once one has formed.
These are the flaws before even considering the natural bias in humans, be it from who is funding the research to what ones political leanings are. There has been ample evidence of data corruption, remember the European emails released a few years ago, plus suspect data station locations. Also consider the greenhouse gasses released during one volcano far exceed what man does in a year.
Climate is a very hard science to model because of the inter-related complicated variables that have to be factored in. It is not as simple as an increase in A results in B. For example, CO2 is algorithmic, so a doubling of CO2 does not mean a doubling of related temperatures.
Do I believe man has an effect on climate, yes. Do I believe the climate change modeling is accurate enough to cost businesses and taxpayers trillions of dollars? No.
Trouble is, there are built in gotchas for the climate change proponents, it is a no lose situation for them. That is the brilliance of their argument. For example, no hurricanes hit Florida for 10 years, climate change--4 hurricanes hit it in one year, climate change. Yet hurricanes have been hitting Florida before Columbus missed it and DeSoto walked upon it. Try to argue the points I give here, and the proponents call you haters or deniers or other such names and quote the science is proven by 97% of scientists. Yet that is not enough for me. My questions are 97% of what group? Where is that groups funding derived from? What are the controls that there modeling has been calibrated with? Any former members of environmental groups or Socialist governments in the group as the environmental movement is a primary congregation point for these former activists?
Jay
jcburns It is settled science. Man's actions have caused significant climate change on a global basis.
It is settled science. Man's actions have caused significant climate change on a global basis.
The science is settled to the extent that doubling CO2 levels should result in about 3W/m^2 increase in downwelling IR. The science is not settled on how much warming will come from that increase - from about 1.2C assuming Stephan-Boltzmann response dominates (i.e. no positive feedback) to 4.5C for the high end of the GCM simulations, to higher for the 'chicken little' analysis. If the climate system has significant negative feedbacks, the wamring may be even less than 1.2C.
The science is also settled in that plants grow better with increasing CO2 levels with the increase leveling off about 2.5 to 3 times the current global CO2 levels. Not sure if we want to go to 1,000ppm of CO2, but the current 400ppm gives us a factor of 2 reserve over where C3 plants are "starving".
Perhaps it would benefit both sides if Wiki Leaks began exposing the emails between the scientists.
Norm
MidlandMike Volcanoes put out many other gases besides CO2, principally H2O (the most abundant) and SO2, both of which cause climatic cooling. They can also put out lots of ash and dust into the atmosphere, which also causes cooling.
Except that volcanism is pretty much been flat
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-significant-increase-in-volcano-eruptions.t6225/
erikem jcburns It is settled science. Man's actions have caused significant climate change on a global basis. The science is settled to the extent that doubling CO2 levels should result in about 3W/m^2 increase in downwelling IR. The science is not settled on how much warming will come from that increase - from about 1.2C assuming Stephan-Boltzmann response dominates (i.e. no positive feedback) to 4.5C for the high end of the GCM simulations, to higher for the 'chicken little' analysis. If the climate system has significant negative feedbacks, the wamring may be even less than 1.2C. The science is also settled in that plants grow better with increasing CO2 levels with the increase leveling off about 2.5 to 3 times the current global CO2 levels. Not sure if we want to go to 1,000ppm of CO2, but the current 400ppm gives us a factor of 2 reserve over where C3 plants are "starving".
This really frames the issue nicely for me. The next question becomes, since we lack really precise knowledge of effects, what should we do about it?
The answer I always wind up with is "everything reasonably practical". Why? Because, if the high end is what's really true, at least we have a shot at it being not so bad. If the low end is the truth, then at least we did no harm.
"Everything reasonably practical" to me is not the "all hands on deck" convertion to renewable energy the greens like to push, nor is it the "do nothing" approach of those who need iron-clad, three siginficant digit precision before budging an inch.
The other benefits of conversion to renewables long term is enough that it's not wasted investment in any case.
"Reasonably practical" also means that impact does not cause significant economic dampening, which would degrade the ablility to make any changes at all.
If I were in charge, I would do two things. One would be to make sure fracking for natural gas continues. Conversion from coal to natural gas drops carbon emmissions in half. You can do these conversions in the very near term. Second is to make sure that the longer term conversions to renewables and energy transmission and storage are supported. I'd do this with a carbon tax and government investment in basic R&D in these fields. The market will take care of the particulars and insure investment is done efficiently.
Note that Rex Tillerson of Exxon (and Sec. of State nominee) is a proponent of a carbon tax.
So, for railroads, this means invest the minimum coal transport. It's dying. Keep both eyes open on using LNG for propulsion fuel. Make sure you have mature technology to employ when the time is right.
The various models are all over the map as far as any precise details. That's not surprising considering the number of variables, many of which have to be approximated as best the scientists are able, and some are yet to be identified. That uncertainty does not mean we can simply "bury our head in the sand". The significant aspect to my mind is that virtually every scientific model is pointing in the same general direction. As the scientists continue to measure observed changes versus their predictions we can expect better approximations as to how the climate might evolve. The science is still in its infancy; any claim of precise results over the long term is premature. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that human activity is having some effect, likely supplementing natural climate variation.
It is rather like always ignoring tornado warnings because the radio does not predict in which block it will touch down. Very rarely would anything bad happen (at least to you) but you still take a few basic precautions.
John
Science is never 'settled'. Each day generates new discoveries that end up 'tweaking' what we thought we knew before the new discovery.
BaltACD Science is never 'settled'. Each day generates new discoveries that end up 'tweaking' what we thought we knew before the new discovery.
Not settled in the sense of an iron law, but a general consensus. As said above: "virtually every scientific model is pointing in the same general direction"
How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that.
Electroliner 1935 How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that.
+1 sounds reasonable and practical to me!
oltmannd Electroliner 1935 How many years did the tobaco industry dispute the claim that smoking cigerettes cause cancer in smokers by dismissing the science. I think the glaciers have made it clear that warming is real. Greenland, Alaska, Canada all have significant ice melt. But like Tree68, I think we should move toward a reduction in coal and an increase in renewables. But we should not destroy our economy nor our lifestyle. I support increased home insulation and higher efficiency equipment. And Rail transport is more energy efficient than trucks and planes so what is not to like on that. +1 sounds reasonable and practical to me!
Add to that nuclear power, based on the improvements available now compared to 30-40 years ago. But it got a bad rep and so the public needs re-education.
According to the believers, moving ahead with caution just to be prudent is not an option. The consenus shows we are approaching a tipping point, and may be there in only a decade or two. So they say we must take the most extreme action against climate change right now, because once we pass the tipping point, the total destruction of the planet cannot be avoided. So this is not the time for half measures for those sitting on the fence.
One point about melting glaciers is that glaciers around the world are always either advancing or retreating. That is what glaciers do. It is easy to travel around and photograph the retreating glaciers which always display melting. Then you can show the pictures to the public and tell them it shows that all the glaciers are melting. It works like a charm.
schlimmAdd to that nuclear power, based on the improvements available now compared to 30-40 years ago
And I second that. Anyone had to have their house checked for Radon Gas? No one knew about houses having Radon gas seeping up from the ground until a worker coming into work at a Nuclear Plant in (I believe Pennsylvania) set off the radiation alarms. When challenged to say where he had been in the plant, he said "nowhere, I'm coming from home". When they tested his house, they found radiation from Radon. Nuclear plants are clean and safe. I have worked in them and the concern for safety is excellent. Three Mile Island harmed no one. All U.S Nuclear plants have containment vessels unlike Chernoble which did not. They do not release any CO2 or particulates into the air. But, the timing of the movie, The China Syndrome in 1979 released with the Three Mile Island event created a "perfect storm" in the publics mind which only saw images of Nuclear Bombs and since then, nobody wants a Nuclear Plant. Today, they are having problems competing with cheap natural gas. When the supply of fracking gas runs out, it will be interesting to see whether they are again built.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.