The Climate thread

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

Remember when smoking hadn’t been proven to cause cancer? When offshore drilling was no concern? When lead water pipes were cool? When vaping was a great alternative to aforementioned smoking...like a month ago?

Be honest, do you really think there’s a low likelihood that within 50 years we’ll be suffering from fracking consequences? Who are you counting on to tell you there is a problem? The same people trying to eliminate the EPA? Those quakes couldn’t possibly be a risk and/or a harbinger either, right?

I get it. It’s created a nice economic boom. It’s also a convenient excuse to not focus more attention on clean, sustainable solutions.

Addressing climate change is going to SUCK. It’s also our responsibility to deal with that pain, and just kicking the can is why we’re here in the first place.

Listen, I wanted to have a serious conversation. I don’t want to debate whether or not fracking caused earthquakes or contaminates water because there is no scientific evidence connecting either. I believe the scientific evidence of climate change. I want to reduce carbon emissions, but you can’t chide people for ignoring scientific evidence and then do the same

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Well... pretty sure about the tainted water, but that is largely about bad practices and not necessarily caused by every fracker. 

Exactly. If you want stricter regulations or denying permits to any operator that commits these atrocities. I’m all for it. 

[Lurch 5931]

Listen, I wanted to have a serious conversation. I don’t want to debate whether or not fracking caused earthquakes or contaminates water because there is no scientific evidence connecting either. I believe the scientific evidence of climate change. I want to reduce carbon emissions, but you can’t chide people for ignoring scientific evidence and then do the same
 

Thanks for coming around on climate change. Baby steps, I guess.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Fracking has not been scientifically proven to be bad for the environment. If her stance was to ban all drilling, at least it would make logical sense. 

I also don’t want the economy to crash 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Fracking has not been proven to cause earthquakes or tainted water systems. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.htm

Unconventional U.S. oil production, which extracts oil from shales and tight rocks using a variety of drilling techniques, has been linked to an increase in human-induced earthquakes across the mid-continent of the United States for nearly a decade. Researchers studying the increase in places such as Oklahoma think that the main driver of this increase in seismicity is the injection of wastewater produced by extraction back into rock layers, which increases pore pressure within rocks and can affect stress along faults in layers selected for disposal.

[Neonmoon 38130]

Wastewater injection wells are not fracking. I think Oklahoma should outlaw them because the natural faults cannot support them. 
 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

10 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

Thanks for coming around on climate change. Baby steps, I guess.

 

I appreciate the condescending remarks. Those are fun. Let me try some....

Maybe you’ll come around on fracking someday when you believe in science. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Wastewater injection wells are not fracking. I think Oklahoma should outlaw them because the natural faults cannot support them. 
 

 

Glad you read the science :

 

The numerous fracking wells in eastern Ohio prompted Brudzinski and his colleagues to take a closer look at whether small earthquakes in the region could be connected to fracking operations. "The wells are more widely spaced when they're active, and there isn't as much wastewater disposal going on," Brudzinski explained, "so you can see a bit more specifically and directly when wastewater disposal is generating seismicity and when hydraulic fracturing is generating seismicity in the Appalachian Basin."

The scientists used a technique called multi-station template matching, which scans through hundreds of seismic signals to find those that match the "fingerprint" of known earthquakes. The technique allowed them to detect small earthquakes that might have otherwise been overlooked, and to compare the more complete earthquake catalog in a region to information on the timing and location of regional fracking well operations.

Seismologists identify earthquakes as being caused by hydraulic fracture wells when they are tightly linked in time and space to fracking operations. Fracking-related seismicity also tends to look different from seismicity caused by wastewater disposal, Brudzinski said.

"The [fracking] seismic signature when you look at it in a sort of timeline shows these bursts of seismicity, hundreds or sometimes thousands of events over a couple of days or weeks, and then it's quiet again. You don't tend to see that pattern with wastewater disposal," he explained.

Brudzinski and his colleagues are now using their dataset from Oklahoma to look at how a variety of variables might affect the likelihood of fracking-induced earthquakes, from the volume and viscosity of the injected liquid to the depth of the rock layers targeted by fracking.

"The one that has stuck out to us the most is that the depth of the well is more tied to likelihood of seismicity than we expected," Brudzinski said.

Edited October 6, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[Neonmoon 38130]

Then those states should absolutely look into whether the risks outweigh the benefits. If becomes a proven fact that all fracking causes earthquakes, then we should ban it. 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Neonmoon

[Lurch 5931]

But not one second too soon, lest neons income be impacted. Suck a juul.

[Lurch 5931]

Also, please defund those states ability to study environmental impact. Less govt please.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

But not one second too soon, lest neons income be impacted. Suck a juul.

You seem like you’re fun to be around. I don’t mind starting a new career. I don’t mind learning a new trade to feed my family. If it’s the right thing to do, so then be it. I don’t think renewables can realistically power the global appetite for energy right. Maybe 50 years from now, But if they can, I don’t mind supporting it 100%. I don’t smoke or use a Juul but sick burn I guess. You really go me.

 

[Lurch 5931]

I’m a dick. It is known.

I’m truly sorry that careers will be destroyed, but this shit is serious. And, again, it will cost us ALL. I accept that I blew off environmentalists for probably 20 years, but acknowledged now that they were right. The game is rigged against them and we all suffer the consequences once the bill comes due. I also accept that the responsibility to fix what’s broken and fight against making matters worse is also all of ours.

So, yes, I’m not a blast to be around when you’re driving the industry and their politicians that are causing the problems we’ll be cleaning up and paying for the rest of my children’s lifetimes.

[RayDog 682]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Then those states should absolutely look into whether the risks outweigh the benefits. If becomes a proven fact that all fracking causes earthquakes, then we should ban it. 

 

But relieving small amounts of pressure through injection wells and fracking might prevent a bigger earthquake in the future.

[elfenix 34331]

On 10/5/2019 at 6:08 PM, Thetexashammer said:

So every word in the video was true. And meant exactly what he said. Redistribution. 

 

again, it's not redistribution in the sense of taking property from wealthy people to give to others, any more than ending slavery was.

actually, in context of what he's talking about, it's closer to what the Bayer and Hall–Héroult processes did to the price of aluminum. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by elfenix

[EastTexan 662]

On September 18, 2019 at 6:28 PM, Thetexashammer said:

To you.

Again, the suggestion is the CO2 would cause an increase in the rate of sea level rise. None has been observed according to NOAA.

You can't talk to these wonks in a civil tone.

or any tone for that matter.

it is entertaining, somewhat, the stories they tell.

Edited October 7, 2019 by EastTexan

[EastTexan 662]

On September 20, 2019 at 5:47 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

She will become very wealthy.

 Capitalism at work. Smart and intelligent young lady.

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, EastTexan said:

She will become very wealthy.

 Capitalism at work. Smart and intelligent young lady.

 

Apparently she started here.

https://www.fundedbyme.com/en/campaign/8227/we-dont-have-time/

Moar here:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by zork

[Lurch 5931]

Attack the messenger.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

Evil fucking humans and their climate change...

Edited October 7, 2019 by Casual Encounter
Taken at the Smithsonian.

[Dahobbs 17644]

15 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

Evil fucking humans and their climate change...

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, the Earth has been warmer. Of course, its temperature changes are general gradual, occurring over millions of years. What is happening currently is unprecedented. The earth is going through the same changes in 100 years, not a million. And we are the cause of that rapid change. And, ultimately the issue isn't that the Earth will not survive. It is that we won't. 

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, the Earth has been warmer. Of course, its temperature changes are general gradual, occurring over millions of years. What is happening currently is unprecedented. The earth is going through the same changes in 100 years, not a million. And we are the cause of that rapid change. And, ultimately the issue isn't that the Earth will not survive. It is that we won't. 

We were never going to survive. Nature is just quickly correcting its worst mistake.

[Dahobbs 17644]

13 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

We were never going to survive. Nature is just quickly correcting its worst mistake.

Weird fatalism. I guess you could say the same about nuclear war too. Why try and avoid it, we are all going to die anyway. Not a particular good philosophy for making public policy. Of course, if we are all going to die anyway, I'm not sure why you care if we try and delay it. You shouldn't care about anything, but somehow I'm guessing you're really concerned about other stuff that doesn't matter because it fits your worldview better. 

Personally, I have a kid. I'd like that kid to have a decent place to live. And I think you're fucking lunatic and an asshole for thinking otherwise. If you want to go all emo, I'd prefer you not muck around with my life and just stay in the corner by yourself.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Weird fatalism. I guess you could say the same about nuclear war too. Why try and avoid it, we are all going to die anyway. Not a particular good philosophy for making public policy. Of course, if we are all going to die anyway, I'm not sure why you care if we try and delay it. You shouldn't care about anything, but somehow I'm guessing you're really concerned about other stuff that doesn't matter because it fits your worldview better. 

Personally, I have a kid. I'd like that kid to have a decent place to live. And I think you're fucking lunatic and an asshole for thinking otherwise. If you want to go all emo, I'd prefer you not muck around with my life and just stay in the corner by yourself.

Listen asshole, I’m not saying I don’t care. I’m all for, and have made, numerous changes to be a good steward for the environment. I’m also not oblivious enough to think humans are as important as we like to think we are or have as much control as we believe we do. People want to take a small snapshot of earth’s history and claim the current cycle is unprecedented.

The current rate of change is a an avalanche and people like to think they can stop it. Good luck selling your policy to the entire world in time to possibly make a few years difference. Or spend your time on something you have more control over.

[Dahobbs 17644]

27 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

Listen asshole, I’m not saying I don’t care. I’m all for, and have made, numerous changes to be a good steward for the environment. I’m also not oblivious enough to think humans are as important as we like to think we are or have as much control as we believe we do. People want to take a small snapshot of earth’s history and claim the current cycle is unprecedented.

The current rate of change is a an avalanche and people like to think they can stop it. Good luck selling your policy to the entire world in time to possibly make a few years difference. Or spend your time on something you have more control over.

Listen asshole, the scientific evidence is well established: humans are driving the current climate change. It is an avalanche of our own making. And we can stop it or slow it if we work to limit out greenhouse gas emissions. I don't think we can stop all avalanches, but we sure as shit can stop detonating dynamite on top of the mountain. That's really all anyone is asking.

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

assholes everywhere i look

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

On 9/30/2019 at 4:44 PM, Lurch said:

It’s almost as if the deniers are in it for the money.

Unfortunately, there’s evidence out there that it goes both ways. Truth is, a large percentage of the people we entrust to create policy operate under the guise of actually putting the environment above the dollar.

Edited to say, I don’t believe everything this guy says either but I’d bet there’s partial truth being shared.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Casual Encounter

[Lurch 5931]

Both sides. Won’t someone please think of Exxon’s revenue.

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

1 minute ago, Lurch said:

Both sides. Won’t someone please think of Exxon’s revenue.

Don’t worry, the leadership on both sides are fully invested in Exxon.

[elfenix 34331]

i should be able to dump my waste into property that's not mine without repercussion!

--personal responsibility and property rights advocates

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

My lawn is lush, green, and pest free. The runoff will kill aquatic wildlife and poison every living creature’s drinking water but it’s ok, I drive a Prius.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Listen asshole, the scientific evidence is well established: humans are driving the current climate change. 

 

That is false. The models are wrong. But no one can be reasoned into a position they weren't reasoned into to begin with. I will say your ad hominems add quite a bit of charm and highlight well the depth of your analysis.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Dahobbs 17644]

Again, citing to anything but actual science from people who, you know, actually have a background in climate. Instead, we get blogs and articles from political science majors, "writers", and mining consultants. Weird. 

NASA, wrong. 97% of climate scientists, wrong. Chevron and the other major oil companies, wrong. Random guy who found a statistical insiginificant coding flaw in some old data? That guy knows what's up. 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34331]

That is false. The models are wrong. But no one can be reasoned into a position they weren't reasoned into to begin with. I will say your ad hominems add quite a bit of charm and highlight well the depth of your analysis.

 

This chart was already debunked in this fucking thread. The evidence was presented to you but you're still parroting false propaganda. You're now knowingly lying you fraud. 

 

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

9 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

That is false. The models are wrong. But no one can be reasoned into a position they weren't reasoned into to begin with. I will say your ad hominems add quite a bit of charm and highlight well the depth of your analysis.

Ironic post is ironic. But keep going. There are others that read this and won't be actively participating in the discussion that get to look at your view points and realize they are not a position of reason. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

16 hours ago, Lurch said:

Both sides. Won’t someone please think of Exxon’s revenue.

Someone needs to. I’ve been taking a bath on it. 

[Zavala 1384]

Short version, worth a watch.

 

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

10 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Short version, worth a watch.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 10/7/2019 at 6:06 PM, Casual Encounter said:

My lawn is lush, green, and pest free. The runoff will kill aquatic wildlife and poison every living creature’s drinking water but it’s ok, I drive a Prius.

 

So, you think we shouldn't do anything about climate change because some people who drive Priuses also use pesticides on their lawn. Do I have that right?

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

30 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So, you think we shouldn't do anything about climate change because some people who drive Priuses also use pesticides on their lawn. Do I have that right?

You’ve got it all figured out. Congratulations, I’d follow you anywhere.

[Zavala 1384]

 

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13119]

A little humor.

 

[Mapache 1117]

20 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

A little humor.

 

 

They shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of our fucked up, self absorbed arrogance 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Mapache

[UpperWestside 6186]

On 10/7/2019 at 6:49 PM, Casual Encounter said:

Don’t worry, the leadership on both sides are fully invested in Exxon.

I think we found Anastasis a soulmate. 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

nm

Edited October 19, 2019 by High Plains Drifter

[BNB 100]

Climate protesters stopping traffic.
This guy is my hero.

[Parliament 14283]

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20470]

Last five Septembers have been the warmest five Septembers, globally, since record keeping began 140 years ago.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/NOAA-Last-Month-Tied-Warmest-September-Record-Globally?cm_ven=hp-slot-3

 

[RayDog 682]

On 10/20/2019 at 10:37 PM, Parliament said:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

That study does not take into account other studies that show that as water has been added to the oceans and the water expands due to temperature increases the sea floor has been lowering and the continents rising.

The rising effect is even more significant since Antarctica is surrounded by a ring of mid-ocean rifts while Antarctica does not have any major subduction zones. It only has one major row of volcanos and certainly not anywhere near the length of subduction zones to equal the expansion rift zones. So we must expect the entire Antartic continent to rise over time.

That makes their analysis meaningless.

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

On 10/11/2019 at 8:06 PM, Mapache said:

 

They shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of our fucked up, self absorbed arrogance 

 

Meanwhile, I have a fb timeline that has pictures of fat grizzlies in the Yellowstone area. They don’t eat salmon ever. Bears are omnivores.  So...anecdotal examples either way still don’t prove anything.

On 10/20/2019 at 9:51 PM, BNB said:

 

 

Climate protesters stopping traffic.
This guy is my hero.

 

So turning moving gas vehicles into idling gas vehicles helps how?

On 10/21/2019 at 10:26 AM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Last five Septembers have been the warmest five Septembers, globally, since record keeping began 140 years ago.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/NOAA-Last-Month-Tied-Warmest-September-Record-Globally?cm_ven=hp-slot-3

 

Full disclosure I haven’t read the link yet, and I might or might not after I post, and some or all of the following may be addressed within.

1. 140 years is a blip in time

2.  How much warmer are we talking?  0.1 C? 0.5?  0.05?

3.  How accurate were measurements globally 140 years ago, back before we ever had been to the poles?  100 years ago?  50 years ago?  

4) if our measuring devices were only accurate to within a degree or two and the increases we are talking about are a degree or less, is the data even appropriate to use?

 

Theres an equilibrium at play here between plant photosynthesis, animal aerobic respiration, and who knows what else. Higher temps and co2 should lead to more plants, which would convert the co2 and stabilize the temps. 

But IIRC a large amount of the photosynthesis is done by phytoplankton and if we fuck up the oceanic pH to the point that they cannot survive, that’s where shit goes south quickly. How adaptable can they be when stressed?  Things that regenerate quickly can adjust to changes better. 

Long winded way of saying I hope the equilibrium can take care of itself in a manner that suits us, because I doubt anything we do will have an impact since we won’t be unwinding the industrial revolution any time soon and going back to hunting and gathering with primitive tools.