Remember me
▼ Content

Fourth National Climate Assessment Report


Fourth National Climate Assessment Report27-11-2018 20:12
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
In sort of a round-about way, I finally found the download page, turned out to be worse than the threat. It's broken up in pieces (chapters), take a day to get it all. Could have at least zipped them all together in a nice neat package. They probably do that, to encourage the sort summary version. Guess I'll have to wait for the hardcover, inscribed (rubber stamped) by Al Gore version on Ebay. Wonder if there is a boxed set available before Christmas?

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/

I'd like to get copies of the complete reports, but don't have time to waste online, downloading individual files. Guess I should keep looking, maybe someone has them compiled for easy download.

Google did give some interesting points I'd like to look into though. Most of their link were criticism of Trump releasing the report on Black Friday, instead of sitting on it for a few weeks (Christmas gift for the country?). Seems like they would want the report released ASAP, since it's so important, and the issue is so time sensitive, the countdown to disaster is getting short, every day counts. If it can wait a few weeks, why not a few decades? Trump should have just filed it where it belongs, but guess it would fit in the trashcan.

It says that man-made CO2 is going to ruin our economy by 2090. Not sure what they mean, the heat, or the global energy takeover by climatologists., cruel irony. There was another point, I thought totally moronic about food crops doing poorly. The warmer climate, and increased level of CO2, is great for plants. Greenhouses augment CO2, around 1200 PPM, our current atmosphere is around 400 PPM, only one third what plants like best. Do they not know anything about agriculture? Soil gets tired on a farm, that's why the add nutrients. Nothing is free on this planet, when you harvest your crops, you take away nutrients that came from the soil, need to be replaced eventually. We already had droughts and floods, and have irrigation, and drainage to deal with it. Bonus, all vegetation should do very well, not just food crops, all those millions of acres of protected trees, will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere like never before, crisis solves itself, no need to empty my savings for me, no need of any socialist overlords.
29-11-2018 03:53
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I downloaded the short version, but haven't had much spare time to really read into it, just glossed over a few sections. Found that the tone of the writing to be more consistent with a professional scientist, not a politician. I haven't read the past three reports, so can't say if this is their standard, or a new tactic to convert. Reads more like they were hired to do a specific job, and stay within that narrow scope (demonize burning type fuels). There has been a lot of hype, or dire need to act, maybe that comes later. Has read like they are hard set on CO2 being the only important factor, just a possibility, that hasn't been disproved (can't prove it either). The consensus doesn't seem like a firm belief it's all real, just that it plausible, possible. They did acknowledge that a lot of the damage and cost, is do to a decaying infrastructure.

Think it's the politicians, the activists, and liberal media cherry-picking the worst case nuggets from these reports, which where order by the socialist side of the aisle. The report has so far acknowledged that there are other factors of influence, outside the scope of the study. They haven't been pushing their methods off as anything more than what they are, a lot of talk, computer simulations, maybe's and what if's.

Of course, this might just be the 'nice' version, for the public. It's the condensed 'brief' version, being light on the hype.
29-11-2018 20:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I downloaded the short version, but haven't had much spare time to really read into it, just glossed over a few sections. Found that the tone of the writing to be more consistent with a professional scientist, not a politician. I haven't read the past three reports, so can't say if this is their standard, or a new tactic to convert. Reads more like they were hired to do a specific job, and stay within that narrow scope (demonize burning type fuels). There has been a lot of hype, or dire need to act, maybe that comes later. Has read like they are hard set on CO2 being the only important factor, just a possibility, that hasn't been disproved (can't prove it either). The consensus doesn't seem like a firm belief it's all real, just that it plausible, possible. They did acknowledge that a lot of the damage and cost, is do to a decaying infrastructure.

Think it's the politicians, the activists, and liberal media cherry-picking the worst case nuggets from these reports, which where order by the socialist side of the aisle. The report has so far acknowledged that there are other factors of influence, outside the scope of the study. They haven't been pushing their methods off as anything more than what they are, a lot of talk, computer simulations, maybe's and what if's.

Of course, this might just be the 'nice' version, for the public. It's the condensed 'brief' version, being light on the hype.


The IPCC have their pet scientists. Very many real scientists have quote the IPCC because of their demands not to understand the climate but to find proof of their conclusions.

But these people get their data from GISS listings and that has been falsified long ago. So if you have bad data to begin with you can't produce anything but bad results.
29-11-2018 22:21
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I've been getting the impression, that the 'test' or experiment, would be to get the world to cut back on CO2 emissions, just to see if it has any effect. The effect will of course be an economic disaster, which would be good for the socialist, who ordered this ridiculous study to begin with. The rise in temperature, and the rise in CO2, don't necessarily have to be related, it's such a short time period, and nothing in recorded history to compare with. We've cut down a lot of old growth trees, and burned a lot of land, to build civilization, the heaviest would be during the same period as the use of carbon fuels. Haven't really seen any data about which types of plants and trees breath the most CO2, but suspect it's the older trees. Oddly, plant's in a greenhouse, like their CO2 around 1200 ppm for growing vegetation (leaves), and 1700-2000 ppm for fruiting. About 4 times more CO2, than what the climatologist are complaining about. Stronger, healther, faster growing food, and they want to deny all the starving people around the world. Would be nice if they quit dumping all the weird chemicals into the environment, but leave the CO2 alone.

Where in the world is it 'Warming' anyway, certainly not in my part of the planet. Been getting milder here in Florida, actually wore a jacket this morning, in November. Not even winter yet. We are 10-15 degrees below average, this morning it was just 2 degrees from tying a 1934 record low. Summer highs haven't hit triple digits here in a long time either.
29-11-2018 23:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've been getting the impression, that the 'test' or experiment, would be to get the world to cut back on CO2 emissions, just to see if it has any effect. The effect will of course be an economic disaster, which would be good for the socialist, who ordered this ridiculous study to begin with.

It is the intent of the socialist to destroy capitalism. That means attacking the factories and economy to break it down so they can 'rescue' it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The rise in temperature, and the rise in CO2,
We really have no records of either. There is no global temperature record anywhere. There are simply not enough thermometers to get any idea of the Earth's temperature. CO2 measurement is even worse. We only have a few dozen stations capable of measuring airborne CO2, and CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
HarveyH55 wrote:
don't necessarily have to be related, it's such a short time period, and nothing in recorded history to compare with. We've cut down a lot of old growth trees,
We've cut down some. Others are still standing. We actually have increased the number of trees in the United States, thanks to Weyerhauser and other lumber suppliers. They farm trees. All the trees used for lumber and for paper are farmed.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and burned a lot of land, to build civilization, the heaviest would be during the same period as the use of carbon fuels.
Man has been using carbon based fuels since the first wood fires. The use of coal, oil, and now natural gas has increased with civilization, but a lot of it took place long before we have anywhere near the population we have today. It's all academic exercise anyway. CO2 does not harm the Earth.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Haven't really seen any data about which types of plants and trees breath the most CO2, but suspect it's the older trees.

Actually it's not any tree. It's grass and plankton that does the bulk of the conversion.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Oddly, plant's in a greenhouse, like their CO2 around 1200 ppm for growing vegetation (leaves), and 1700-2000 ppm for fruiting. About 4 times more CO2, than what the climatologist are complaining about. Stronger, healther, faster growing food, and they want to deny all the starving people around the world.
I find the left really doesn't care about people starving around the world, unless they are using them as pawns for another one of their schemes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Would be nice if they quit dumping all the weird chemicals into the environment, but leave the CO2 alone.

Don't know what you mean by 'weird'. Some chemicals can harm the environment in large quantities (even water!). Things like pesticides help us grow that food to feed those starving people (as opposed to letting the bugs have it). They are safe and not harmful to the environment when used properly. Fertilizers help the soil. They don't hurt it. The real solution to pollution is dilution. Perhaps it would help if you could specify the 'weird' chemical you are concerned about.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Where in the world is it 'Warming' anyway, certainly not in my part of the planet. Been getting milder here in Florida, actually wore a jacket this morning, in November. Not even winter yet. We are 10-15 degrees below average, this morning it was just 2 degrees from tying a 1934 record low. Summer highs haven't hit triple digits here in a long time either.

Triple digits are kind of rare for Florida. It has oceans on both sides. The temperatures in Florida tend to track the temperature of the water in those oceans. Air changes must faster than ocean water, of course, so you can get wider variations, including the occasional triple digit temperature.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 01:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've been getting the impression, that the 'test' or experiment, would be to get the world to cut back on CO2 emissions, just to see if it has any effect. The effect will of course be an economic disaster, which would be good for the socialist, who ordered this ridiculous study to begin with. The rise in temperature, and the rise in CO2, don't necessarily have to be related, it's such a short time period, and nothing in recorded history to compare with. We've cut down a lot of old growth trees, and burned a lot of land, to build civilization, the heaviest would be during the same period as the use of carbon fuels. Haven't really seen any data about which types of plants and trees breath the most CO2, but suspect it's the older trees. Oddly, plant's in a greenhouse, like their CO2 around 1200 ppm for growing vegetation (leaves), and 1700-2000 ppm for fruiting. About 4 times more CO2, than what the climatologist are complaining about. Stronger, healther, faster growing food, and they want to deny all the starving people around the world. Would be nice if they quit dumping all the weird chemicals into the environment, but leave the CO2 alone.

Where in the world is it 'Warming' anyway, certainly not in my part of the planet. Been getting milder here in Florida, actually wore a jacket this morning, in November. Not even winter yet. We are 10-15 degrees below average, this morning it was just 2 degrees from tying a 1934 record low. Summer highs haven't hit triple digits here in a long time either.


During the last full ice age the CO2 levels were 15%. Why would you be worried about 400 parts per million?
30-11-2018 03:17
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint. Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use. It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.


Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees. Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues. Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature. Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily. Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild. In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.
30-11-2018 06:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint.
Hmmm. Still pretty vague. Anything toxic is actually worth money to somebody. Do have a specific product or chemical you are worried about?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use.
Again, a vague fear. If you want to understand or deal with pollution, you first have to identify it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

Motor oil came from the ground in the first place. Dumping it on the ground just returns it to the ground from whence it came.

That said, dumping used motor oil in lakes or streams does pollute the lake or stream. That's bad, and also illegal. If you catch someone doing that, call the cops.

More people recycle their oil than you probably realize. It can be cleaned and reused for a variety of products. I change my own oil for all of my cars and aircraft. All of it is recycled.

Oil spills in water, especially ocean water, is naturally dealt with by bacteria living in that water. Warmer water such as around where you live make the bacteria eat oil faster. Those little guys love the stuff.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.
Those tend to be associated with hurricane activity most of the time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees.
Sounds like you're in the right place! Florida has all you want, plus a few extra goodies!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues.

I really don't think we need to worry about CO2 at all.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature.

Heh. Perhaps. There is also a consensus of millions that LIKE the cold and snow.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily.

Seasonal variations in most places see swings in temperatures of 50 degF or more. I think the population can handle a change of a couple of degrees!

HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild.

Models are not data.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.

Models only show what the programmer wants them to show. They are essentially glorified random number generators.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 19:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint. Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use. It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.


Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees. Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues. Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature. Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily. Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild. In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.


Like most people you have an over-inflated view of man. After research I discovered that those pictures of "a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific" to be complete lies. The pictures were taken from a boat that followed a garbage scow from Thailand out into international waters where they dumped it. This is common in most of the world that adjoins the oceans.

The "island" is nothing of the kind. It consists of a 1 mm plastic particle every 1 sq meter of ocean. And these are being eaten by ocean bacteria. There is the continuous renewal from dumnping so it isn't likely to disappear but this isn't some huge growing problem.

Man in fact is a pretty small force on Earth. Forest fires produce a far more dangerous effect.
30-11-2018 20:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint. Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use. It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.


Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees. Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues. Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature. Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily. Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild. In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.


Like most people you have an over-inflated view of man. After research I discovered that those pictures of "a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific" to be complete lies. The pictures were taken from a boat that followed a garbage scow from Thailand out into international waters where they dumped it. This is common in most of the world that adjoins the oceans.

The "island" is nothing of the kind. It consists of a 1 mm plastic particle every 1 sq meter of ocean. And these are being eaten by ocean bacteria. There is the continuous renewal from dumnping so it isn't likely to disappear but this isn't some huge growing problem.

Man in fact is a pretty small force on Earth. Forest fires produce a far more dangerous effect.


You are absolutely right concerning the 'plastic island'. The story about all that 'plastic covering the sea' is more garbage than what is actually on the sea.

As Wake correctly stated, plastics break down. They break down from exposure to UV light, and from bacteria that loves to eat it (the same bacteria that loves to eat oil, many of them). The stuff is a food source.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 22:49
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint. Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use. It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.


Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees. Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues. Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature. Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily. Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild. In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.


Like most people you have an over-inflated view of man. After research I discovered that those pictures of "a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific" to be complete lies. The pictures were taken from a boat that followed a garbage scow from Thailand out into international waters where they dumped it. This is common in most of the world that adjoins the oceans.

The "island" is nothing of the kind. It consists of a 1 mm plastic particle every 1 sq meter of ocean. And these are being eaten by ocean bacteria. There is the continuous renewal from dumnping so it isn't likely to disappear but this isn't some huge growing problem.

Man in fact is a pretty small force on Earth. Forest fires produce a far more dangerous effect.


Don't know how you got to 'Plastic-Island', never wrote a word. 4/5ths of the Earth's surface is water, take a whole lot of dumping, to create islands. Likely take a while to dump enough, in a contained area, to intentionally form and island you could walk on, live on.

Plastic is made from oil out of the ground, few exceptions. Isn't carbon great stuff? Why would anyone speak ill of the stuff that gives us life?

I agree that man doesn't have the might, to alter the course of the planet, but we could do a lot better caring for our living space. We generate a huge volume of intentional trash and waste, which eventually goes to a landfill. Some can be separated and recycled, but the bulk of it gets burned and buried. Not sure if they still burn at landfills, there was a huge 'stink' about the practice a while back, even though the practice made good sense, since it reduces the volume to be buried, kills off bacteria growth (garbage smell), helps break down what's left.

Single use products, and single serving packaged foods generate a huge volume of unnecessary trash. There are some things, that make sense, but the vast majority are simply convenience items. Easy way to find a homeless camp, just follow the trash trail. Rarely see people using cloth diapers for the new bundle of joy... Okay, so it's not pleasant, but there are sealed containers, and there use to be laundry services, that were diaper specific, so women didn't have to deal with it. I don't know if anyone ever kept count, but a single baby burns through a lot of disposable diapers. There are a lot of 'mothers' who can't even dispose of the used ones, in a responsible manner. Some just leave them were they changed them, park bench, parking lots, waste basket in a tiny waiting room, and the buses, trains, planes. Some, apparently throw them out the car window.
01-12-2018 02:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weird chemicals, would be the waste, byproducts of making other chemicals, like fertilizers, insecticides, drugs, household cleansers, solvents, paint. Companies are in business to make money, cheaper to dump chemical waste, rather than store, or find some other use. It's not just the manufacturers who dump waste chemicals, the consumers do quite a bit of it too. How many people even look for a place to drop off a jug of used solvent, or even the motor oil, if they change it themselves? Sure, doesn't amount to much, to an individual, but millions of people, doing the same thing, every year?

We use to get triple digit highs for days, occasionally all week, before a break. The water on both coasts cause a problem during the warmer months, we get a sea breeze coming in from both sides, on side is cooler than the other, on if a stronger breeze, different water vapor content, different pressure, makes for daily afternoon storms, sometime bad thunderstorms, tornadoes. The bad storms have been rare for a decade or more, hardly here about any tornadoes on land anymore.


Co2? Worried? I like the warmer climate, grew up in the cold, wasn't fun for me, and I like plants and trees. Instead of cutting CO2 levels in half, I'm more for doubling it. If they want to experiment, why not do something that has a measurable impact on the environment? Cheap and plentiful food, would let us focus on more important issues. Think there is a consensus of millions, this time of year, for an increase in temperature. Climatologist predict a small increase, over the next hundred years, which would barely match some of our record highs, most people survived just fine. We could adapt easily. Most of the doom and gloom predictions are worst case, just playing with the models, never intended to be realistic, just the limit of the models, before they went wild. In reality, the models, in a more conservative, a reasonable level, don't show much change, in what we have already had in the past.


Like most people you have an over-inflated view of man. After research I discovered that those pictures of "a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific" to be complete lies. The pictures were taken from a boat that followed a garbage scow from Thailand out into international waters where they dumped it. This is common in most of the world that adjoins the oceans.

The "island" is nothing of the kind. It consists of a 1 mm plastic particle every 1 sq meter of ocean. And these are being eaten by ocean bacteria. There is the continuous renewal from dumnping so it isn't likely to disappear but this isn't some huge growing problem.

Man in fact is a pretty small force on Earth. Forest fires produce a far more dangerous effect.


Don't know how you got to 'Plastic-Island', never wrote a word. 4/5ths of the Earth's surface is water, take a whole lot of dumping, to create islands. Likely take a while to dump enough, in a contained area, to intentionally form and island you could walk on, live on.

Plastic is made from oil out of the ground, few exceptions. Isn't carbon great stuff? Why would anyone speak ill of the stuff that gives us life?

I agree that man doesn't have the might, to alter the course of the planet, but we could do a lot better caring for our living space. We generate a huge volume of intentional trash and waste, which eventually goes to a landfill. Some can be separated and recycled, but the bulk of it gets burned and buried. Not sure if they still burn at landfills, there was a huge 'stink' about the practice a while back, even though the practice made good sense, since it reduces the volume to be buried, kills off bacteria growth (garbage smell), helps break down what's left.

Single use products, and single serving packaged foods generate a huge volume of unnecessary trash. There are some things, that make sense, but the vast majority are simply convenience items. Easy way to find a homeless camp, just follow the trash trail. Rarely see people using cloth diapers for the new bundle of joy... Okay, so it's not pleasant, but there are sealed containers, and there use to be laundry services, that were diaper specific, so women didn't have to deal with it. I don't know if anyone ever kept count, but a single baby burns through a lot of disposable diapers. There are a lot of 'mothers' who can't even dispose of the used ones, in a responsible manner. Some just leave them were they changed them, park bench, parking lots, waste basket in a tiny waiting room, and the buses, trains, planes. Some, apparently throw them out the car window.


You can blame the environmentalists for the plastic container trash. They made paper too expensive to use, even though paper breaks down faster than plastic does.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2018 04:29
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:

You can blame the environmentalists for the plastic container trash. They made paper too expensive to use, even though paper breaks down faster than plastic does.



It'd be people like you who don't recycle.
01-12-2018 20:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You can blame the environmentalists for the plastic container trash. They made paper too expensive to use, even though paper breaks down faster than plastic does.



It'd be people like you who don't recycle.


1) I do recycle. I recycle aluminum, which can profitably be turned into other aluminum products, I recycle oil, which can be profitably cleaned and turned into oil products, and that's about it.

Recycling paper is a waste of resources. You pollute more by recycling paper than you save by just putting it in the landfill. The same is true of plastics, lithium batteries, food waste, etc. Better to compost them in a landfill.

2) I don't think you understand just how little the amount of trash is generated by man or what happens at a sanitary landfill. Discarded trash is dumped, then covered over with dirt. Liquids are caught by the underlining membrane and routed to the bottom of the pit, where they decompose there. After the landfill is completed, it is sealed, and a park or golf course is built on top. The methane generated from decomposition is routed off to heat homes. In a way, a landfill IS a recycling center. It is a community compost pile. This compost pile, though, can handle much more than grass and waste food. Stinks less too.

If we took ALL the trash generated in the United States and put it in ONE landfill, it would be no larger than a county in Kansas. Transporting it there would be a tremendous waste of fuel. So we use smaller, local landfills.

I don't dump plastics or anything else into the sea except treated sewage, which is food for fish. What plastics DO wind up there break down pretty quickly and are eaten by bacteria living in the sea.

Paper breaks down even faster. Rain, UV, and bacteria all break down paper. It returns to the soil from whence the tree that produced it grew from. Paper even occurs in nature. It is very benign stuff.

Recycling only makes sense if it doesn't waste more resources than what you 'save'. It you pollute more by recycling that what you clean up, it doesn't make sense.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 05:31
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I don't believe all landfills work the same, maybe I used the word incorrectly. Sewage in the ocean... We have a lot of cruise ships that stop by the state of Florida, some will purge their tanks offshore, before docking, to avoid the fee. Occasionally they get caught, and fined (supposedly, tourism is our major industry). Thing is, most people won't pay for things they don't have to, will cut corners to save time and money. For recyclables you can get paid for, like aluminum, you have to collect a good bit, before it even pays for the trip. It's not a perfect world, and full of imperfect people. Heard so banging around in the back alley last night, somebody was dumping a bunch of tires in the dumpster back there. Think the disposal fee is like $3.00 a tire, when you buy a new set. He dumped more than four, guess he had to save them until he found an empty dumpster...
02-12-2018 07:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe all landfills work the same, maybe I used the word incorrectly.

Correct. Each landfill is built differently depending on the locale. Different terrain requires different construction techniques.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sewage in the ocean... We have a lot of cruise ships that stop by the state of Florida, some will purge their tanks offshore, before docking, to avoid the fee.
Not a problem. Sewage is fish food. Dumping it in the ocean before coming close to shore is a perfectly valid method of disposing of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Occasionally they get caught, and fined (supposedly, tourism is our major industry).

Fining them for this practice is stupid, so long as the sewage is dumped offshore far enough.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thing is, most people won't pay for things they don't have to, will cut corners to save time and money.
They don't need to.
HarveyH55 wrote:
For recyclables you can get paid for, like aluminum, you have to collect a good bit, before it even pays for the trip.
The sidewalk??
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not a perfect world, and full of imperfect people.

True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Heard so banging around in the back alley last night, somebody was dumping a bunch of tires in the dumpster back there. Think the disposal fee is like $3.00 a tire, when you buy a new set. He dumped more than four, guess he had to save them until he found an empty dumpster...

Why the hell is anyone making people pay to dispose of tires?? Old tires are worth money! Tire rubber is profitable to recycle.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2018 07:47
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Government wants their share of the profit... Probably not so much profit, if you had to drive around to collect them. Cost money to haul them to a recycle center, which aren't on ever street corner, or even every county. Recycling is a good thing, but not everyone gets much reward for it, beyond the feeling of doing something good for the planet, which most people aren't willing to pay for.
02-12-2018 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Government wants their share of the profit... Probably not so much profit, if you had to drive around to collect them.

Why should government be involved at all? They don't know what to do with the things!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Cost money to haul them to a recycle center, which aren't on ever street corner, or even every county.

There are not that many tire shops.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Recycling is a good thing, but not everyone gets much reward for it, beyond the feeling of doing something good for the planet, which most people aren't willing to pay for.

Recycling is not necessarily a good thing. Oftentimes is a worse thing than simply throwing it into a landfill.

Now if people aren't even willing to do that, than you get slobs like the twit that dumped tires in your back alley.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-12-2018 19:03
02-12-2018 20:10
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
Governments spend a lot of money, a lot more than they take in, so they have to get creative in how they squeeze out a little more cash. We see them using our money on frivolous things, while neglecting pressing problem, where they should be spending.

One really good example would be the tax on tobacco. If it's such a huge health issue, should have been banned half a century ago. They just keep raising the tax on them, but nothing to reduce sales. Even though, tobacco needs to go, smoking anything is bad for your lungs, we have the legalization of another weed, for recreational use, sometimes as an alternative medicine. There are E-Cigarettes and Vaping, inhaling chemicals into the lungs, and not just the same stuff in tobacco, but pretty much anything. I don't think using most of these things are all that dangerous, if used lightly, moderately. Some people just don't have the moderation genes, just can't get enough of the bad stuff.
02-12-2018 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Governments spend a lot of money, a lot more than they take in, so they have to get creative in how they squeeze out a little more cash. We see them using our money on frivolous things, while neglecting pressing problem, where they should be spending.

One really good example would be the tax on tobacco. If it's such a huge health issue, should have been banned half a century ago.

Prohibition doesn't work. It just feeds organized crime. This is true of the 'drug war' as well.
The government hasn't yet learned that the free market is immortal, you can't kill it. Not even if you drive it underground.

It people want a product or service, the free market is always there to provide it. It operates solely to price discovery.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They just keep raising the tax on them, but nothing to reduce sales.
The government doesn't WANT to reduce sales. They just want the revenue.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even though, tobacco needs to go, smoking anything is bad for your lungs, we have the legalization of another weed, for recreational use, sometimes as an alternative medicine. There are E-Cigarettes and Vaping, inhaling chemicals into the lungs, and not just the same stuff in tobacco, but pretty much anything. I don't think using most of these things are all that dangerous, if used lightly, moderately.
It's all bad. Nicotine is extremely addictive. Putting foreign objects into your lungs doesn't do them any good.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 02:32
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.
03-12-2018 18:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.


The real problem with smoking is the carefully crafted means of advertising them. It they did this with methamphetamine the human race would all be dead now. It should be absolutely forbidden to show anyone anywhere on TV that is smoking or vaping. Are you aware that people who use vapes are 20 times more likely to smoke within 5 years? Or that people that smoke Marijuana invariably become tobacco users? This is nothing more than a doorway that tobacco companies use to develop addicts where their real money comes from.
03-12-2018 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.


People can only successfully sell something because someone else wants it.

Capitalism is self correcting in this way. A person or a company succeeds because it produces a product or service that people want for the price they are willing to pay for it.

If the price is too high, no sale. If the price is too low, no profit, and no company.

If the product or service is not desirable to anyone, no sale.

If too few have an interest in the product or service, slow sales, probably not enough to cover the cost of providing the product or service. Therefore no company.

Note the government has NO ROLE in this at all. The free market operates even without a government at all.

If my property has a creek, and I pollute the creek, what does that mean for my downstream neighbor? That's when conflict happens, and rules set between them become important. That is the beginning of government.

If what I do on my property does not affect my neighbor (other than providing a product or service for them), then government has no role.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2018 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.


The real problem with smoking is the carefully crafted means of advertising them.

No, the real problem with smoking (or vaping) is the damage it causes and the stink it makes.
Wake wrote:
It they did this with methamphetamine the human race would all be dead now.

Don't think so. First not all people smoke. There is a reason for that. Second, meth IS advertised using lies. Third, meth does not kill directly (its like tobacco that way), but by the side effects of its use, such as loss of teeth, kidney damage, heart damage, etc. Most people are revolted by these side effects and so would not use meth to begin with.
Wake wrote:
It should be absolutely forbidden to show anyone anywhere on TV that is smoking or vaping.

So, no free speech, eh? Did you know the federal government doesn't have authority to limit what's on TV? Get your head out of the TV and get a life.
Wake wrote:
Are you aware that people who use vapes are 20 times more likely to smoke within 5 years?
Not a factor for what is on TV. That said, yes...vaping actually causes more problems than smoking, as well as tending toward use of tobacco.
Wake wrote:
Or that people that smoke Marijuana invariably become tobacco users?

I've not found that generally to be true. It is true that tobacco users will also sometimes smoke pot as well.
Wake wrote:
This is nothing more than a doorway that tobacco companies use to develop addicts where their real money comes from.

Actually, they are competing with pot, rather than using it as a doorway. They don't make pot. They don't control that market.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Q04-12-2018 17:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.


People can only successfully sell something because someone else wants it.

Capitalism is self correcting in this way. A person or a company succeeds because it produces a product or service that people want for the price they are willing to pay for it.

If the price is too high, no sale. If the price is too low, no profit, and no company.

If the product or service is not desirable to anyone, no sale.

If too few have an interest in the product or service, slow sales, probably not enough to cover the cost of providing the product or service. Therefore no company.

Note the government has NO ROLE in this at all. The free market operates even without a government at all.

If my property has a creek, and I pollute the creek, what does that mean for my downstream neighbor? That's when conflict happens, and rules set between them become important. That is the beginning of government.

If what I do on my property does not affect my neighbor (other than providing a product or service for them), then government has no role.


Apparently you are not old enough to remember the 50's. Probably 90% of all men smoked and 60% of all women. Until they banned cigarette advertising and smoking on the screen from TV the rates of lung cancer, emphysema and congestive heart failure were dramatic. After they stopped this of-hand advertising these illnesses dropped so dramatically that no one could argue any longer that it was smoking that caused them.
04-12-2018 17:41
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
In the 50's we also did a lot of other, not so healthy or safe things. That timeline, is also around where they cut back on nuclear bomb testing a great deal... Tobacco is highly addictive, it still being sold though, since it generates a lot of cash tax revenue. Even in the 60's kids could buy tobacco, vending machines were popular, and not hard to find, product relatively cheap too. Not sure if the advertising ban, or restricted sales and high taxes, bulk of the price, is responsible for the reduction. Fewer young people get started smoking, because it's tough for them to get a hold of them, compared to drugs. Parents keep their expensive cigarettes were they don't get swiped, but few put their medications in a pick-proof safe. $7.00 a pack to a kid, is expensive, just to look 'cool', but the same money can be spent on drugs, they can be 'Cool' and get high too.

I don't think there is a single cause for cancer, or most of those fatal diseases, as some people are exposed to the same things, same levels, and don't suffer the same fate. People that never smoked, not been around much of it, still die of the same illnesses. Smoking may be the cause of some of it, just not the only factor. Probably lifestyle choices, that go along with smoke, has a lot to do with it, they just don't care, do what they want, as much as they want.
04-12-2018 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm only disturbed buy the commercial sales, easy access. What people do on their own property, with their own lives, should be the government's business. Lot of people's personal business, I'd rather not know about. If people want to grow a crop for personal use, should be their right. Just is right to get other people involved, by opening up a store. Already too many people running around, not quite right in the head, to sell things that ain't going to help them much.


People can only successfully sell something because someone else wants it.

Capitalism is self correcting in this way. A person or a company succeeds because it produces a product or service that people want for the price they are willing to pay for it.

If the price is too high, no sale. If the price is too low, no profit, and no company.

If the product or service is not desirable to anyone, no sale.

If too few have an interest in the product or service, slow sales, probably not enough to cover the cost of providing the product or service. Therefore no company.

Note the government has NO ROLE in this at all. The free market operates even without a government at all.

If my property has a creek, and I pollute the creek, what does that mean for my downstream neighbor? That's when conflict happens, and rules set between them become important. That is the beginning of government.

If what I do on my property does not affect my neighbor (other than providing a product or service for them), then government has no role.


Apparently you are not old enough to remember the 50's.
But I do, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Probably 90% of all men smoked and 60% of all women.
Those numbers are a bit high, Wake. I think you're making them up. Smoking was popular then, though.
Wake wrote:
Until they banned cigarette advertising and smoking on the screen from TV the rates of lung cancer, emphysema and congestive heart failure were dramatic.

Nope. That was 20 years later, Wake. Most of those people had quit smoking by then, and fewer were getting started. The ads made little difference and were after the fact.
Wake wrote:
After they stopped this of-hand advertising these illnesses dropped so dramatically that no one could argue any longer that it was smoking that caused them.

Smoking does cause problems. We already knew that in the 50's and even earlier, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2018 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
In the 50's we also did a lot of other, not so healthy or safe things. That timeline, is also around where they cut back on nuclear bomb testing a great deal... Tobacco is highly addictive, it still being sold though, since it generates a lot of cash tax revenue. Even in the 60's kids could buy tobacco, vending machines were popular, and not hard to find, product relatively cheap too. Not sure if the advertising ban, or restricted sales and high taxes, bulk of the price, is responsible for the reduction.

Kids couldn't buy tobacco in the 60's. Vending machines selling cigarettes were placed where they could be watched. Kids stole their cigarettes or had some schmuck buy them for them, just like the do today.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fewer young people get started smoking, because it's tough for them to get a hold of them, compared to drugs.

It's easy to get ahold of them, both in the 60's and also today.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Parents keep their expensive cigarettes were they don't get swiped, but few put their medications in a pick-proof safe. $7.00 a pack to a kid, is expensive, just to look 'cool', but the same money can be spent on drugs, they can be 'Cool' and get high too.

Kids didn't care. They just stole them. Parents were smoking less though, so there were less kids stealing cigarettes from their parents.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think there is a single cause for cancer,
The theory the smoking causes cancer has been falsified. Smoking causes other problems, but cancer isn't one of them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
or most of those fatal diseases,
Lung damage is serious stuff.
HarveyH55 wrote:
as some people are exposed to the same things, same levels, and don't suffer the same fate.

Not quite true. You don't get the emphysema and other lung damage related diseases so often with non-smokers.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People that never smoked, not been around much of it, still die of the same illnesses.

Not quite true. Smoking does definitely cause lung damage. Sometimes to the point of being fatal lung damage. The same thing happens with smoking pot.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Smoking may be the cause of some of it, just not the only factor. Probably lifestyle choices, that go along with smoke, has a lot to do with it, they just don't care, do what they want, as much as they want.

Lung damage can occur from smoking, certain viruses or bacteria, damage from breathing glass fibers, asbestos dust, or poor masking and ventilation while painting using catalysis paints.

Lots of things can cause lung damage. Smoking is one that happens due to the recreational use of a drug.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Fourth National Climate Assessment Report:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!1205-12-2018 00:58
IPCC report.7818-11-2018 18:09
Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming4309-11-2018 22:08
I'm uncertain about the timeline of action from the new UN report515-10-2018 09:18
Indonesia Field Report On Wildlife Trafficking And Illegal Fishing As The Last Twitch? Discussed By Crown311-04-2018 03:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact