PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change: what would Reagan say?



David G
12-07-2015, 03:25 PM
And Elder Bush?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/03/reagan-bush-41-memos-reveal-how-republicans-used-to-think-about-climate-change-and-the-environment/

Nicholas Scheuer
12-07-2015, 03:41 PM
Reagan would certainly say, "THERE you go again". The man was an idiot.

John Smith
12-07-2015, 03:46 PM
Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination today, which is strange in that today's candidates keep invoking his name.

Nixon signed the EPA into existence. After the Ohio River caught fire.

I'm sure some remember how quickly the snow on the side of the road used to turn black from the exhausts of traffic. We were breathing that stuff. Where I sailed, I remember the only fish I'd see were dead ones floating on the surface.

Last time I was on those waters there were live fish and no dead ones floating on the surface.

I would think anyone who lived through this would welcome efforts to protect our environment.

BrianY
12-07-2015, 04:05 PM
This is what happens when a party values profits for themselves and their cronies more than they value the long term good of the nation and the world. They try to argue that the two things are the same, but evidence and experience indicates other wise. Being pro-business is not a sin. However, being so pro-business that everything else is secondary is.

RonW
12-07-2015, 04:07 PM
Reagan would, say, I am from the government, and I am here to help you ... and then he would break out in laughter..

Tom Montgomery
12-07-2015, 04:10 PM
Nixon signed the EPA into existence. After the Ohio River caught fire.
*Sigh*

After the Cuyahoga River caught fire.


https://youtu.be/VtW8RkI3-c4

David G
12-07-2015, 04:15 PM
This is what happens when a party values profits for themselves and their cronies more than they value the long term good of the nation and the world. They try to argue that the two things are the same, but evidence and experience indicates other wise. Being pro-business is not a sin. However, being so pro-business that everything else is secondary is.

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

Dannybb55
12-07-2015, 04:35 PM
Nixon had the National Acadamy of Science look into Keeling's and many others data. They wrote their own climate model, put in all of the data, crunched the numbers and concluded that the earth was warming and it was, to a large part, the US's fault. Nixon thought that the answer was bad for his career and shut it all down. That was in the late sixties, the evidence was obvious in the late 50s for Scientists and had been expected for 150 years by then.

paulf
12-07-2015, 04:51 PM
If you look carefully at climate cycles over the last 500,000 years (based on our ability to understand these data) You'll notice that Ice sheets several thousand feet thick have covered the vast majority of the US north and all of Canada at least 4-6 times, the last being 18,000 years ago "Frasier glaciation". There have also been Ice free periods in the arctic. We are bit players in a big world. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to curb our generation of green house gas but we are nothing when compared with Planetary axial procession decay, solar flux and other geocentric input.

Our real problem is a gigantic population that will suffer big time for small adjustments in climate that will most assuredly happen at some time. Presidents don't think that far ahead, and are powerless anyway.

Todd D
12-07-2015, 04:54 PM
Reagan would, say, I am from the government, and I am here to help you ... and then he would break out in laughter..

Only if those were the lines he was given to read.

RonW
12-07-2015, 05:13 PM
Only if those were the lines he was given to read.

Unlike some we know........


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpaQm88KeE-kK38SxT7zduIfGp94C4w1IA83MYxAYNKuLTodWj

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 05:23 PM
If you look carefully at climate cycles over the last 500,000 years (based on our ability to understand these data) You'll notice that Ice sheets several thousand feet thick have covered the vast majority of the US north and all of Canada at least 4-6 times, the last being 18,000 years ago "Frasier glaciation". There have also been Ice free periods in the arctic. We are bit players in a big world. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to curb our generation of green house gas but we are nothing when compared with Planetary axial procession decay, solar flux and other geocentric input.

Our real problem is a gigantic population that will suffer big time for small adjustments in climate that will most assuredly happen at some time. Presidents don't think that far ahead, and are powerless anyway.

Our REAL problem is that the changes and glaciation you describe happened at a 'glacial' pace.

What we are doing now is changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than ever before, and the ability of the biosphere to keep pace with these changes is doubtful at best.

When you strip away all the veneer of social acceptability, it becomes clear that the Earth's biosphere is headed for an extinction event the likes of which have not yet been recorded.

JimD
12-07-2015, 05:33 PM
If you look carefully at climate cycles over the last 500,000 years (based on our ability to understand these data) You'll notice that Ice sheets several thousand feet thick have covered the vast majority of the US north and all of Canada at least 4-6 times, the last being 18,000 years ago "Frasier glaciation". There have also been Ice free periods in the arctic. We are bit players in a big world. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to curb our generation of green house gas but we are nothing when compared with Planetary axial procession decay, solar flux and other geocentric input.

Our real problem is a gigantic population that will suffer big time for small adjustments in climate that will most assuredly happen at some time. Presidents don't think that far ahead, and are powerless anyway.

Yeah, but this is new and its all on us humans.

http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/China-Pollution_sham.jpg

Ice Ages may be beyond our control but that doesn't mean anyone has to live like this.

WX
12-07-2015, 09:11 PM
A little C&P

“If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound,” acting assistant secretary Richard J. Smith wrote in the memo.
Smith then cited Baker’s own words to a working-group meeting a few months earlier: “As you yourself stated,” he wrote, “we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”
The memos reflect the moderate stance on climate change adopted by Republican leaders both in the White House and in Congress throughout the 1980s and 1990s. By contrast, many of today’s GOP successors to Bush and Reagan dispute the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump recently said he is “not a believer” in man-made climate change, an issue he dismissed as something “created by and for the Chinese.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who in the past has acknowledged the existence of climate change, said Tuesday, “It’s not a crisis.”
“That’s my feeling. I didn’t say I was relying on any scientist,” Christie told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “I don’t see evidence that it’s a crisis. I don’t.”

paulf
12-07-2015, 09:18 PM
Look at historical estimates of major eruptions or collisions with space debris and we are still small potatoes, sorry we are going to loose this conflict and it will be population that packs us in. Climate is always changing, right now it is warming, soon (50k years) it will be cooling. That is going to happen, however,the poison in the atmosphere, yes that's us, but as much as you think we matter much is ridiculous. We as a species are insignificant. We will out produce our ability to feed ourselves, the air will recover after we are toast.

Sorry, we just aint that important.

Paul Pless
12-07-2015, 09:24 PM
Look at historical estimates of major eruptions or collisions with space debris and we are still small potatoes, sorry we are going to loose this conflict and it will be population that packs us in. Climate is always changing, right now it is warming, soon (50k years) it will be cooling. That is going to happen, however,the poison in the atmosphere, yes that's us, but as much as you think we matter much is ridiculous. We as a species are insignificant. We will out produce our ability to feed ourselves, the air will recover after we are toast.

Sorry, we just aint that important.In with a bang, out with a whimper.

The universe is slowly dying. The universe will continue to expand, everything in it becoming further and further apart, while every star in it becomes dimmer as each star runs out of fuel. It does seem painfully obvious. . .


http://www.npr.org/2015/08/10/431343...aging-universe

paulf
12-07-2015, 09:27 PM
Our REAL problem is that the changes and glaciation you describe happened at a 'glacial' pace.

What we are doing now is changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than ever before, and the ability of the biosphere to keep pace with these changes is doubtful at best.

When you strip away all the veneer of social acceptability, it becomes clear that the Earth's biosphere is headed for an extinction event the likes of which have not yet been recorded.

Not sure your science confirms this, One major eruption of a volcano, and yes there will be more, would produce 1000x what we can in years. Sorry we aint that great! Perhaps our extinction would be a

welcome event, perhaps not for us, but we aren't that important others may benefit.

Paul Pless
12-07-2015, 09:32 PM
I have a lot of sympathy for Paulf's stated views, however there are many many other good reason for practicing conservation of carbon resources than just limiting our potential to cause global warming.

George Jung
12-07-2015, 09:39 PM
That fatalism/lack of concern for future generations is defeatist and self-fulfilling. I'd suggest a different tack.

paulf
12-07-2015, 09:41 PM
I have a lot of sympathy for Paulf's stated views, however there are many many other good reason for practicing conservation of carbon resources than just limiting our potential to cause global warming.

Yes indeed, This is true.

We need to do what we can where it is possible. Some things we do not control and never will. And we need to be honest about what we are really trying to accomplish and what we can accomplish, this is all good.

paulf
12-07-2015, 09:49 PM
How do you proceed? Do you have the understanding?

Not fatalism, history. No lack of concern either, lots of concern here, just a real fear of our fate.

Sorry, your concern for future generations is already in your hands, what can you do?

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 10:47 PM
Not sure your science confirms this, One major eruption of a volcano, and yes there will be more, would produce 1000x what we can in years. Sorry we aint that great! Perhaps our extinction would be a

welcome event, perhaps not for us, but we aren't that important others may benefit.

According to the USGS (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html), humans make over a hundred times more CO2 than volcanoes do every year.


Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

paulf
12-07-2015, 10:54 PM
Over what time period? Look, I am not saying we are not producing way to much CO2 what I am saying is if you or the USGS feel that natural vents of co2 are trivial than that is just untrue.

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 11:09 PM
Over what time period? Look, I am not saying we are not producing way to much CO2 what I am saying is if you or the USGS feel that natural vents of co2 are trivial than that is just untrue.

Each year, Paul.

'Feelings' don't come into the equation at the USGS.


All the volcanoes in the world emit an average of 200 million tonnes of CO2 each year, while human combustion of fossil fuels releases 250 billion tonnes.




I had a conversation with a guy at a lumberyard, once, and he said that he understood this at Bible school one day when he was about 8.

The world will be destroyed by fire, he said, but not one big fire. It'll be the billions of fires we set to get ourselves through each day.

I thought that was a pretty profound insight for a rural Georgia 8-year-old.

paulf
12-08-2015, 01:49 AM
Each year, Paul.

'Feelings' don't come into the equation at the USGS.


All the volcanoes in the world emit an average of 200 million tonnes of CO2 each year, while human combustion of fossil fuels releases 250 billion tonnes.




I had a conversation with a guy at a lumberyard, once, and he said that he understood this at Bible school one day when he was about 8.

The world will be destroyed by fire, he said, but not one big fire. It'll be the billions of fires we set to get ourselves through each day.

I thought that was a pretty profound insight for a rural Georgia 8-year-old.

Perhaps, 500,000 years will tell the story, we may not be here to hear the tale.

Dan McCosh
12-08-2015, 10:27 AM
Each year, Paul.

'Feelings' don't come into the equation at the USGS.


All the volcanoes in the world emit an average of 200 million tonnes of CO2 each year, while human combustion of fossil fuels releases 250 billion tonnes.




I had a conversation with a guy at a lumberyard, once, and he said that he understood this at Bible school one day when he was about 8.

The world will be destroyed by fire, he said, but not one big fire. It'll be the billions of fires we set to get ourselves through each day.

I thought that was a pretty profound insight for a rural Georgia 8-year-old. According to your earlier post, your data is off by a factor of 10.

George Jung
12-08-2015, 10:35 AM
ExxonMobil had info in the 60's that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming - by their estimate, 6 - 8 degrees celcius - and felt 'govt intervention was necessary. I believe then Pres. Nixon 'buried' that info; and guess what - the blood suckers at Exxon Mobil aren't about to lead the charge on this one.

This isn't difficult info, it's overwhelmingly convincing - thinking otherwise is wishful.

The bigger question - how to get off our arses, and actually address it. It'd take a Manhatten project - and a Congress actually supporting, rather than fighting, this.

paulf
12-08-2015, 11:08 AM
Look I don't disagree that atmospheric co2 is a real problem. As a green house gas it is tame in comparison to others. There are other enormous factors that must also be considered.

The planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles throughout it's entire existence. The core of the planet is slowly cooling and the local star has profound influence on our climate and atmosphere.

Couple of things:

If there is an ice free arctic the albedo of the planets northern hemisphere will absorb more heat, as that warmth is held in by various gasses in the atmosphere will be exacerbated and the temperature will rise faster.

This will trigger the release of sequestered green house agents like methane hydrates etc., etc. The oceans are the big kicker here, are they a sink or source for these things? Is the mass of the world oceans

capable to regulate these changes? Lost of questions not a lot of time, not a lot of funding.

I worked on a research program to try to determine with passive microwave emissivity, from orbit, if conditions in the world oceans are a sink or source. what role do surfactants have in this exchange rate.

Hell, 125 years ago we were riding horses for god sakes. We don't know crap and we have a lot of catch up learning to do! Mean while, some nitwit is spouting the most vile and ridiculous crap (Trump) and folks are eaten

It up!

We got big problems and they is us.

Sorry, rant off.


We published several papers via the American geophysical union. Do the homework, read the science take the classes

oznabrag
12-08-2015, 04:16 PM
According to your earlier post, your data is off by a factor of 10.

Thanks for having caught that, Dan. You are correct.

My apologies for having inadvertently added a zero to the figure for fossil-fuel CO2 emissions.

Man made CO2 is only 100+ times that of volcanic CO2, not 1000+ times.





This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

John of Phoenix
12-08-2015, 04:35 PM
The world will be destroyed by fire, he said, but not one big fire. It'll be the billions of fires we set to get ourselves through each day.As in billions of internal combustion engines? How delightfully metaphorical.

oznabrag
12-08-2015, 08:18 PM
As in billions of internal combustion engines? How delightfully metaphorical.

Sorta snaps things into focus, don't it?

paulf
12-08-2015, 08:33 PM
Ya, you guys are right on, how did i miss it all these years??? Thanks!