* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Advertisement

* Current Watches/Warnings/Advisories for TN - Click the (+) Icon to the Right to see them ------>


Author Topic: Climate Change and Energy Discussion  (Read 3585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Curt

  • Administrator
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,125
  • Location: Arlington, TN(Memphis suburb)
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2017, 05:38:41 PM »
actually pretty simple ... each launch... releases toxic gases into the atmosphere... just eroding the ozone layer ... let me dig back into this then I paste article for all us to enjoy n read....

Oh Bruce....

Offline BRUCE

  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,362
  • Location: Spring creek
  • home of three ef4 tornadoes since 1999
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 774
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2017, 05:46:33 PM »
what about the old  R-12 freeon that's was used years ago in air conditioners... that was by far the best freeon to ever use... now... im calling BS there... our govt.  got in on that idea... ;)   
Come on severe wx season...

Offline Clay

  • Moderator Supporter
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Location: Brentwood/Seven Springs area
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2017, 05:50:56 PM »
Aside from this (and last year's winter storm fail for southern west TN) I'm not sure what the gripe is about. Looking at Jackson's snowfall since 2008, including a 13 inch snow and blizzard conditions in 2009, what could one possibly ask for? Yes , there were a couple of dud winters thrown in for good measure, but seems dramatic to just say childhood years are a thing of the past. Blame the North Pacific for this winters fail- and quite frankly- it was overdue with the long period of a warm blob. I could go on and on about AGW- but I won't. It makes me tired.
At the same time, if we're likening significant snowfalls (or lack thereof) with AGW, I could throw out BNA's significant snowfalls since '08. You can argue that from either side of the aisle. Not that I would, but more statistically significant data like surface temps, average growing season length, and sea ice data paint a clear picture of what is going on on a broader scale.

This is too many ground balls to field in one play. Going to break this response up.
I think our earths able to handle bad gas's and air ect however its only able to "disperse" (i guess is the right term idk) so much at a time. So if you notice there is a lot more cars, factorys ect ect vs 100 years ago.

Actually, assuming humans quit emitting carbon today, scientists estimate it would still be nearly half a century before planetary warming stabilized and hundreds of years before regressing to the norm of our ancestors. Think about how large the ocean is. Now consider how much additional excess CO2 is trapped in the ocean and how long it would take to cool the ocean after normal CO2 levels were reached. It's a long process. Oh, and CO2 isn't inherently bad, either.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today/

Quote
Its just the fact that we aint stopping (and imo shouldn't honestly) is why it keeps hanging around. And the more factorys cars ect that we build and make the more it will seem to be getting worse but again I dont think its nothing to worry about maybe in a few thousand years at this trend.
So you're suggesting this is a problem, but it won't be for a long time, so let's not address it. This sums up reactionary vs proactive planning.

Quote
I think pollution is a bigger problem we should worry about (the kind you can see on the ground not in the air). 
Oxymoron?

Quote
I mean is there really any proof what we done 50 years ago is still in the air or is it all of what we done last year what we breath ect.
I...I got nothin'.


« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 07:01:12 PM by Clay »

Offline Dyersburg Weather

  • Derecho
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,263
  • Location: North of 40
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 287
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2017, 10:21:40 AM »
Here is an interesting chart.




Post Merge: February 28, 2017, 11:52:11 AM
As you can see by the chart there was major space travel around 1100 BC. >:D
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 11:52:11 AM by Dyersburg Weather, Reason: Merged DoublePost »

Offline DocB

  • TNWX Supporter
  • Severe Thunderstorm
  • ******
  • Posts: 393
  • Location: Historic Nolensville, TN (20m SSE of Nashville)
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2017, 12:47:41 PM »
As you can see by the chart there was major space travel around 1100 BC. >:D

Offline snowdog

  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,910
  • Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2017, 07:24:20 PM »
Looks like this Feb. very close temp wise to Feb 1954.  Also interesting to note the UAH global temp anomaly last year was almost exactly the same as 1998 (last super nino). 

Offline JayCee

  • Derecho
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,080
  • Location: East Sevier County
  • Still a wxfreak
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2017, 05:15:16 PM »
Looks like this Feb. very close temp wise to Feb 1954.  Also interesting to note the UAH global temp anomaly last year was almost exactly the same as 1998 (last super nino).

I think that is one reason I have an issue with the "global warming" problem.  The media is so quick to hype up a warm winter or summer for ratings or whatever agenda they have.  They rarely ever discuss past extreme weather, and there has been plenty of it.  I would find it more credible if they didn't cherry pick their information.  Whether or not it's a man-made issue, or just a cycle, I just wish both sides would desire to get to the REAL truth.
"For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snowstorms and rainstorms, and did my duty faithfully, though I never received one cent for it.." 
Henry David Thoreau

Offline Clay

  • Moderator Supporter
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Location: Brentwood/Seven Springs area
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 489
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2017, 05:59:57 PM »
I think that is one reason I have an issue with the "global warming" problem.  The media is so quick to hype up a warm winter or summer for ratings or whatever agenda they have.  They rarely ever discuss past extreme weather, and there has been plenty of it.  I would find it more credible if they didn't cherry pick their information.  Whether or not it's a man-made issue, or just a cycle, I just wish both sides would desire to get to the REAL truth.
A couple things. First of, I'm not trying to dispute the fact the huge media conglomerates have never been influenced by politicians and lobbyists but if you have an "agenda", you take cherry picked information, often from shaky sources, spin the facts, and report it as news. If you report widely available information from  reputable scientists and governmental agencies and report it as news, that's all you are doing. Reporting news. If that information is inaccurate, there is no malintent. News outlets will still report on blizzards, & cold weather especially in populated areas. Those events affect a large audience, thus grabbing large amounts of attention. These guys are journalists not climatologists. They aren't going to report an arbitrary record low when the majority of the nation is torching in order to appease a small percentage of skeptical viewers. Their job, in addition to holding people accountable, is to capture audience attention. Significant weather is a lot like blood. When it bleeds it leads.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 06:04:17 PM by Clay »

Offline JayCee

  • Derecho
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,080
  • Location: East Sevier County
  • Still a wxfreak
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2017, 01:03:17 PM »
A couple things. First of, I'm not trying to dispute the fact the huge media conglomerates have never been influenced by politicians and lobbyists but if you have an "agenda", you take cherry picked information, often from shaky sources, spin the facts, and report it as news. If you report widely available information from  reputable scientists and governmental agencies and report it as news, that's all you are doing. Reporting news. If that information is inaccurate, there is no malintent. News outlets will still report on blizzards, & cold weather especially in populated areas. Those events affect a large audience, thus grabbing large amounts of attention. These guys are journalists not climatologists. They aren't going to report an arbitrary record low when the majority of the nation is torching in order to appease a small percentage of skeptical viewers. Their job, in addition to holding people accountable, is to capture audience attention. Significant weather is a lot like blood. When it bleeds it leads.

I was strictly speaking about their discussion on the specific issue of "global warming."  Countless times I've watched ABC & NBC news concerning an “extreme” weather event and almost always the discussion of climate change is brought up, and the extreme event is hailed as PROOF that it is real.  It’s not.  It’s weather.  Extreme weather happens, and our current era isn’t the only time it’s happened.  Whether or not its man-made, “climate change” or "global warming" isn’t responsible for every bad thing that happens weather-wise these days.   
"For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snowstorms and rainstorms, and did my duty faithfully, though I never received one cent for it.." 
Henry David Thoreau

Online Crockett

  • Administrator
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,957
  • Location: Oneida, TN
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2017, 01:12:57 PM »
Take it from someone whose livelihood is in the news media...there is a HUGE bias when it comes to reporting on climate change.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and say unequivocally that climate change isn't happening...or even that AGW isn't real (though I'm a very big skeptic). But the media continue to propagate a changing narrative while effectively muzzling those who contradict that narrative.

Flash back to 2005. It was a terrible year for hurricanes in the U.S. The narrative was that it was all being driven by climate change, and that the future was to see a huge uptick in hurricanes striking the U.S. mainland. But when we soon went into a sustain period of minimal hurricane activity, the narrative changed to say that climate change will actually cause fewer hurricanes, but those hurricanes will be stronger than ever before. Hurricane Matthew provided the perfect fodder for that narrative last fall. Every extreme weather event is blamed on climate change, as if extreme weather hasn't been happening in the U.S. since recorded history began. Superstorm Sandy wasn't an isolated freak of nature; it was caused by climate change. The great Nashville flood wasn't a once-in-100-year flood; it would've never happened if not for climate change.

The rush to pin every single weather event on climate change is nonsensical. And everywhere you turn, countless column inches or primetime TV slots are being provided to the promoters of this theory, while the scientists who refute that theory (yes, they do exist) are denied an opportunity to present their side -- in essence being censored by the mainstream media.

Offline snowdog

  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,910
  • Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2017, 03:22:34 PM »
Take it from someone whose livelihood is in the news media...there is a HUGE bias when it comes to reporting on climate change.

Trump nailed it the other day.  Most media, which is blatantly biased (or fake news as he calls it), is an enemy of the people.  It is sickening to watch the "news" in today's world.  It has nothing to do with facts or honesty and everything to do with shock value and bias.  The Jerry Springer effect. Also, this is an apolitical post.  FoxNews is guilty just as CNN (and Trump should call both out and not just one side). 




Offline Curt

  • Administrator
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,125
  • Location: Arlington, TN(Memphis suburb)
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2017, 03:24:22 PM »
Climate change most certainly exists and always has existed. The politicization of climate change is relatively new and IMO,  not based on enough facts (obviously).

Offline snowdog

  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,910
  • Location: Mt. Juliet, TN
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2017, 03:28:13 PM »
Climate change most certainly exists and always has existed. The politicization of climate change is relatively new and IMO,  not based on enough facts (obviously).

You now it isn't based in fact when they have to come out and constantly beat that 97% of scientists agree.  If it was so obviously agreeable to all, you wouldn't have to sell it so hard.  It would sell itself based on it's merits.

Offline JayCee

  • Derecho
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,080
  • Location: East Sevier County
  • Still a wxfreak
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2017, 08:07:32 AM »
Interesting flow chart I found yesterday. 

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/world-flowchart.jpg



I can't totally throw out the idea that humans could be influencing climate.  As I said in an earlier post, it's obvious we can alter our surroundings and our environment, and impact Earth's systems.   Nevertheless, media outlets do the issue a huge disservice by attributing the majority of unusual weather events to the “the greenhouse effect” (That’s a term they don’t use as much these days).  We can’t even agree on how a warming Earth will behave (noted in Crockett’s earlier post about hurricanes), so how can we blame global warming for any specific weather event?   Concerning the issue itself, however, I have to take pause when we see so many uninterrupted warm years in a row, globally speaking, and the fact Arctic sea ice keeps hitting record lows in our era.   Is it just the Earth doing its thing, cycling from cold to warm and back again?  Or is the Earth’s climate system sensitive enough to be affected by human activity and increasing greenhouse gases?  For that matter, is there any way to prove it one way or the other?  How much information is enough?  If only we could eliminate politics, hype, and retain some humility concerning this issue.  We really don’t know as much as we think we do—one way or the other. 
"For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snowstorms and rainstorms, and did my duty faithfully, though I never received one cent for it.." 
Henry David Thoreau

Offline Thundersnow

  • Administrator
  • Tornado
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,325
  • Location: Nolensville
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Climate Change and Energy Discussion
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2017, 09:17:04 AM »
The spectre of climate change being raised at every extreme event does get absurd. I can remember a comment on social media when hurricane Sandy affected New York, "Wow- climate change is no joke!"... when storms as bad or worse than Sandy have affected that region decades and centuries ago. It was getting drummed up again with hurricane Matthew... when the the Atlantic basin was actually OVERDUE a storm of that strength.

On the other hand, I know someone who lived in Alaska in the 1970s, who remembers glaciers and ice/snow covered areas year round, where he noted dramatic receding and melting in that area on recent return visits.

It's a hairy issue where both the cause and effect of it are debatable... and even whether it's even happening at all for some. There have been allegations over the years that numbers have been manipulated to support warming. Some of that may fall into the category of conspiracy theory though. ;)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Advertisement