Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Do you know what calibration even means?

Well, here's NASA's calibration program.
https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/metrology-and-calibration

I think they know calibration.
Of course, deniers can always spread FUD which is why I always regret trying to have a rational discussion with them.

 

[barjohn]

I know that the NASA METCAL program understands what it is as I have worked with them in the past. However, the term is often loosely thrown around by lay people that don't know what it means. Most lay people think it means adjusting something so it matches a reference value. That is not what calibration means in the METCAL community.

 

[ZsoZso]

Well, here's NASA's calibration program.
Metrology and Calibration

I think they know calibration.
Of course, deniers can always spread FUD which is why I always regret trying to have a rational discussion with them.

Sorry for OT post.
I love your avatar picture! Is that photoshopped or somebody really put up a sign like that for giggles ?

 

[mspohr]

Sorry for OT post.
I love your avatar picture! Is that photoshopped or somebody really put up a sign like that for giggles ?

That's a real photo that I found. I assume that Charlie's Fast Lube was making a joke. I thought it was funny.
(It seems to be a chain. Here's their facebook page with their sign. They change the lettering a lot. Charlie's Fast Lube-Jackson )

 

[ggies07]

I've never listened to such sorrow in a song about how we live our lives and do not think about the repercussions to the only planet we live on.....

The clothes are on the line
The cars are in the drive
The meal is on the table
The children play outside
The streets are calm for now
The town is smoking on
The country, it's a fortress
That's how this world goes round
And so our day-to-day
Is set in stone this way
We rise, we work, we tire
We've only so much strength
So dear mother, there's no other
One to ask forgiveness of you
Sorry for what you've endured
We know that our existence
Has hurt you, it has hurt you
Columbus will discover
What someone had before
A beauty like no other
A reason to wage war
And herein lies our problem
What's mine is mine, not yours
No matter what the consequence
We will always want more
So dear mother, there's no other
One to ask forgiveness of you
Sorry for what you've endured
We know that our existence
Has hurt you, it has hurt you
You must think we are funny
For you are so much older
You must be waiting patiently
To brush us off your shoulder

 

[nwdiver]

'If I might quote the punch line from an old joke, 'You can believe me or your lyin' eyes.' These are facts. These are facts that cannot be refuted by any scientist or any union or any special interest that is weighing in more heavily on this issue than any issue since we got into campaign finance reform'

He wasn't perfect... but he had his moments; RIP John McCain

 

[ohmman]

Shell Oil Quietly Urges Lawmakers to Support Carbon Tax

 

[SageBrush]

Shell Oil Quietly Urges Lawmakers to Support Carbon Tax

From this article

A small but growing number of conservative advocacy groups and energy companies have talked openly about their support for a U.S. carbon tax, in particular in exchange for rolling back environmental regulations.

And

General Motors Co. and four oil and gas majors—Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC, Shell and Total SA—support that plan, which includes a provision that would shield the industry from certain lawsuits

 

[nwdiver]

I'm on the fence about letting them off the hook for their crimes. On the one hand a strong message needs to be sent. On the other hand it's very unlikely we can make any progress without fixing the market failure regarding fools fuel; Maybe everyone but Exxon. Exxon kinda stands out in what they knew and the lengths they went to sow uncertainty.

 

[ggies07]

I'm on the fence about letting them off the hook for their crimes. On the one hand a strong message needs to be sent. On the other hand it's very unlikely we can make any progress without fixing the market failure regarding fools fuel; Maybe everyone but Exxon. Exxon kinda stands out in what they knew and the lengths they went to sow uncertainty.

View attachment 329359

I agree. I had read the article somewhere else than here and thought it was a double edge sword.....and what is the best way to correct this in the end - keep up the fight or move forward as quickly as possible......

 

[ohmman]

I agree. I had read the article somewhere else than here and thought it was a double edge sword.....and what is the best way to correct this in the end - keep up the fight or move forward as quickly as possible......

Moving forward as quickly as possible is the only option, but this particular structure isn't the only choice for doing so. While I agree that it would be nice to hold these companies accountable, I'm viewing it as a sunk cost at this point. What matters is that we get a structure in place to rapidly limit emissions, and unfortunately it has to be something that has broad support.

 

[SageBrush]

Moving forward as quickly as possible is the only option, but this particular structure isn't the only choice for doing so. While I agree that it would be nice to hold these companies accountable, I'm viewing it as a sunk cost at this point. What matters is that we get a structure in place to rapidly limit emissions, and unfortunately it has to be something that has broad support.

I'm not sure those arguments hold up to scrutiny.

For one, fines and litigation might free up the funds needed to advance the transition to clean energy. The US needs 100s of billions of dollars to upgrade the grid and for now the taxpayer is balking.

Second, the demand of the oil companies to remove environmental regulation has me worried. Do we want a small carbon tax in return for oil spills everywhere ?

As is usual, the devil is in the details but I am skeptical of the oil companies creating a more rapid transition to clean energy; I suspect more likely they are architecting the Golden era of oil profits for the next X years. And if GM is anything to go by, they fleece the taxpayer now and litigate/lobby later to side-step the earlier agreement.

 

[ohmman]

I'm not sure those arguments hold up to scrutiny.

For one, fines and litigation might free up the funds needed to advance the transition to clean energy. The US needs 100s of billions of dollars to upgrade the grid and for now the taxpayer is balking.

Second, the demand of the oil companies to remove environmental regulation has me worried. Do we want a small carbon tax in return for oil spills everywhere ?

As is usual, the devil is in the details but I am skeptical of the oil companies creating a more rapid transition to clean energy; I suspect more likely they are architecting the Golden era of oil profits for the next X years. And if GM is anything to go by, they fleece the taxpayer now and litigate/lobby later to side-step the earlier agreement.

Which is why I said "this particular structure isn't the only choice for doing so." What I mean to imply is that tying up regulation in lengthy litigation proceedings could be more harmful than finding an acceptable balance and moving forward.

I don't suggest that removing environmental regulations is a good part of that deal. Nor do I think that introducing a carbon tax will somehow relieve us of the need for corporate oversight on oil companies.

Finally, your 100s of billions number for the grid is probably peanuts compared to costs we'll be facing from the other affects of climate change, so I agree we need to find a way to fund recovery and relocation. Just as importantly, we'll need to make building code and land use plans that more accurately account for the risk of certain areas and keep humans out of them. In my state, they've been trying to keep municipalities from having a general plan that allows building in high fire risk areas. It has fallen on deaf ears to date, but it seems we're getting more traction now. I think the same will be true at the coasts where flooding is likely to increase.

 

[SageBrush]

Finally, your 100s of billions number for the grid is probably peanuts compared to costs we'll be facing from the other affects of climate change

Oh, for sure.
I meant that for now the US does not have a funding mechanism to develop the grid and infrastructure needed for clean energy development. Getting the oil companies to pay for it may be a wise choice.

 

[SageBrush]

After so more thought I am even more skeptical.

These oil companies profit from the extraction, processing and sale of oil and its products.
It does not pass the smell test that they want to harm their business.

When they come clean and show how they benefit despite a carbon tax then I will consider whether it is worthwhile to me. Until then this is just BS.

 

[SSonnentag]

While I would love to eliminate pollution from the world, I'm still not sold on the idea of CO2 causing global warming. The planet has been steadily warming ever since the last ice age (awesome movies, by the way). I once had a T-shirt that has long since worn out. It read, "It's the sun, stupid!" I still feel that way. I've seen data that suggests CO2 actually causes a cooling effect over time. Plants basically eat CO2. My soda is flat without CO2. I believe what we really have is a bunch of paid shills and pseudoscientists spewing a lot of nonsense in an effort to make money, gain notoriety (they think its fame), or to either upset or possess political power, nothing more. We are all viewed as pawns in their game.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm still not sold on the idea of CO2 causing global warming.

As NdGT has said, 'The universe doesn't care what you believe'

CO2 blocks IR light much more preferentially than visible light => If CO2 levels go up... you get warming. If that's too complicated for you that's fine... I don't understand why I need water I just know I need to drink. We all NEED to reduce our burning of fossil fuels; period.

The sun was ruled out as the cause decades ago; It's CO2.

 

[SSonnentag]

As NdGT has said, 'The universe doesn't care what you believe'

CO2 blocks IR light much more preferentially than visible light => If CO2 levels go up... you get warming. If that's too complicated for you that's fine... I don't understand why I need water I just know I need to drink. We all NEED to reduce our burning of fossil fuels; period.

Great, more pseudoscience. For some actual science, as opposed to indoctrination, start reading here: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

 

[nwdiver]

Great, more pseudoscience. For some actual science, as opposed to indoctrination, start reading here: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

Which part specifically is pseudoscience? This? How could increasing CO2 levels >40% NOT cause warming????

Science literally doesn't get any more settled than this. It's pretty simple energy balance. ~No change in energy coming in... less energy going out => Warming. Let me know if that's too complicated and I'll try to find smaller words.

 

[Brando]

Great, more pseudoscience. For some actual science, as opposed to indoctrination, start reading here: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

acidification of oceans - so glad to know all that extra CO2 getting eaten up by the oceans.
What could possibly go wrong?
Did you notice how much taller your trees are getting? It is all that extra CO2.
AND your food prices coming down because of all that extra CO2 growing more crops.

</sarcasm> didn't want to mislead you