Climate and Weather

Grace T. said:
Hawaiian history was a one time hobby of mine. This article is a bit misleading, deliberately so to make propaganda points:

1. Pineapple plantation owners didn't flock to Hawaii in the early 1800s. Most of the white planters actually came from missionary families and sea captains who settled on the island. The entire thing of those missionary families is they came to "save" the Hawaiians but wound up bringing mass disease wiping out most of them and then profiting in business. The planters actually stole Pineapples from elsewhere, and used them to grow where sugar cane could not.
2. Both pineapple and sugar cane plantations haven't been profitable in Hawaii since the 1970s. They've been replaced by much lower producers elsewhere. Government has had over 40 years to clean up the plantation mess since it hasn't been a factor for decades.
3. The west side of Maui has always been in the shadow of the mountains and has always been desert like. Yes, breadfruit used to grow in the Lahaina area but that was more due to the swampy areas along the coast. There's some truth to the stuff they write about stream diversion and wells, but the other big factor is those swamps were cleaned up to prevent outbreaks of diseases. Otherwise, the beaches would just be marsh lands.
4. The big culprit in water diversion, which the article mentions but blames the plantations for, is the hotels, condo developments, swimming pools and golf courses. Presumably, they did this so that they could make their message about white plantation owners are bad, without making their readers feel guilty about taking those Hawaiian vacations. If you are vacationing on the dry side of the island, you are totally part of the problem. They are like those climate changers who preach windmills and recycling and then go about flying everywhere. One way to change the ecology on the west side is to get rid of all the resorts and developments, but that's not going to happen because not only would the developers be out their money, but the people out their jobs, and Maui would be reduced to an underdeveloped almost third world like country (see Molokai for reference) with a vastly lower population.
5. The East side of the island has plenty of water. The problem is the government has never wanted to invest in that, in part because most of such investment goes to Oahu (where the voters reside). If agriculture were actually profitable on the west side, you totally would have seen an investment in the infrastructure needed to shuffle water from one side to the other of the island (which would be expensive because of the rugged geography of the wet sides and the fact that the water runs downhill on the volcanos)....but it's not cost effective since Hawaiian agriculture is undercut by other countries, so they never did it. The hotels are basically free riding on the water (and the politicians, largely in D hands, won't say boo because of money).
6. What ever happened to honest journalism. Does every piece need to be a propaganda piece for either the right or the left? No wonder legacy media is dying. If this is the best they can do, maybe they deserve it.
Click to expand...
So many liars these days. History Liars and Science Magicians. The Right and the Left buy these people off to tell their stories. I almost moved to Maui in 2005. Had a job offer and a deposit down on a new house for$600,000 that today is worth over $2,000,000.
 
John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. Speech dated June 26, 2023 at Quantum Korea:

1693580883564.png

"I can say with certainty that there is NO real climate crisis and that climate change is NOT causing extreme weather events."
 
TREASON OF THE SCIENCE JOURNALS: How Anthony Fauci manufactured consensus on the origins of COVID-19 with the help of science writers and the media.
New emails released in a congressional probe show that Fauci helped direct the publication of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” an influential scientific paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, that claimed COVID-19 could not have leaked from a laboratory. Fauci then cited the paper—in effect quoting himself, since he coordinated the article behind the scenes and was given final approval before it published—as if it was an independent source corroborating his assertions that COVID could only have come from a bat and not from a lab.
Click to expand...
Read the whole thing.

Now with the above in mind. Bet your ass the gov and media are pushing climate alarmism and doing all they can to drown out scientists who point out a different point of view regarding climate change.
 
espola said:
They sure know their audience.
Click to expand...
So the emails released show what Fauci was doing...which was lying about the source of the virus.

And you think somehow that the response is...hey they sure know their audience?

You and the rest of the American public were continually lied to about the virus. And here you have emails showing exactly that.

And yet you blindly move on pretending things like this have not come to light.

Sheep is a term that comes to mind.
 
I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want.

CO2 was 417 ppm, for 2022. Historical levels are about 270-280 ppm. So, about 50% higher than normal, and growing quickly.

We have ice cores which show that this has never happened in the last ten thousand years.

Can we stop arguing about whether there is a change happening? That question is settled.

1693662839124.png

With a little more effort, we can also dismiss the argument over whether humans are causing the change. The giant spike in CO2 levels was caused by the giant spike in burning stuff. Unless some other species has mastered fire, that means it was us.

S
 
dad4 said:
I'm not sure what kind of evidence you want.

CO2 was 417 ppm, for 2022. Historical levels are about 270-280 ppm. So, about 50% higher than normal, and growing quickly.

We have ice cores which show that this has never happened in the last ten thousand years.

Can we stop arguing about whether there is a change happening? That question is settled.

View attachment 17972

With a little more effort, we can also dismiss the argument over whether humans are causing the change. The giant spike in CO2 levels was caused by the giant spike in burning stuff. Unless some other species has mastered fire, that means it was us.

S
Click to expand...
More specifically, burning stuff whose carbon content was gathered millions of years ago. Burning current carbon gatherers such as wood, charcoal derived from wood, and peat had been the cultural standard for millennia until technological advances about 200 years ago opened up access to the abundant fossil fuels coal and oil. We have been burning them without much constraint ever since.
 
From National Park Service --

Death Valley National Park Remains Closed due to Damage from Hilary Storm
DEATH VALLEY, Calif. – Death Valley National Park is still closed due to major flash flood damage. The park had its rainiest day ever during Hurricane Hilary on August 20, receiving more rain than it normally does in an entire year.
All roads in the park, including CA-190, were damaged and are closed until further notice. Remnants of Hurricane Hilary caused extensive flash flooding, which eroded material under the road, leaving unsupported pavement and drop-offs in many places. Flooding also deposited dirt and rocks up to 5 feet deep on roads.
Caltrans and contractors are working on CA-190, but do not have an estimated opening date. National Park Service (NPS) crews are working to remove debris and fill in shoulders on other paved roads within the park. The NPS, working through the Federal Highway Administration, will hire contractors for repaving and other major road repair items.
Park officials say the park will likely reopen in stages. It may be weeks before Furnace Creek and Stovepipe Wells open. Secondary roads in the park may take months to open.
“Multiple national parks across the country have sent staff to assist Death Valley in this enormous undertaking. Each day brings more progress in our efforts to open and repair roads and facilities, but this is going to take time.” said acting superintendent Ben Roberts. “Death Valley National Park is larger than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware, with over 1,400 miles of roads. There is a lot of work to do.”
-www.nps.gov/deva-
1693668209440.png
 
espola said:
More specifically, burning stuff whose carbon content was gathered millions of years ago. Burning current carbon gatherers such as wood, charcoal derived from wood, and peat had been the cultural standard for millennia until technological advances about 200 years ago opened up access to the abundant fossil fuels coal and oil. We have been burning them without much constraint ever since.
Click to expand...
Mostly, I wanted to get to the point where we stop pretending that 1, it isn't happening, and 2, it wasn't us.

Once people admit there is a change and we caused it, things get rational and people begin discussing the relative merits of wind and nuclear.

That's when you need the conservatives in the discussion. Liberals get all dreamy about a 2 MW demonstration project. Conservatives ask "now show me what a terawatt looks like."

For solar, a terawatt looks like 2000 copies of the solar park in Antelope Valley. Roughly 10,000 square kilometers.

For wind, it is 200,000 full size offshore wind turbines.

For nuclear, it means reopening San Onofre and building 500 more just like it.

Or, more realistically, some combination of the three.
 
dad4 said:
Mostly, I wanted to get to the point where we stop pretending that 1, it isn't happening, and 2, it wasn't us.

Once people admit there is a change and we caused it, things get rational and people begin discussing the relative merits of wind and nuclear.

That's when you need the conservatives in the discussion. Liberals get all dreamy about a 2 MW demonstration project. Conservatives ask "now show me what a terawatt looks like."

For solar, a terawatt looks like 2000 copies of the solar park in Antelope Valley. Roughly 10,000 square kilometers.

For wind, it is 200,000 full size offshore wind turbines.

For nuclear, it means reopening San Onofre and building 500 more just like it.

Or, more realistically, some combination of the three.
Click to expand...
The problem with 1 is that we don’t all agree what’s the scope of the problem. It ranges from life is over in 10 years to nothing is happening.

the problem with 2 is that it’s also not black and white.Where the argument is which portion of it we are causing and to what extent.

then you get to apportion the blame with 2 by country. That gets you to your Asia problem.

then 3 if how much you want to offset it v how much you can live with it. Stopping it completely is more than just a solar wind and nuclear argument (and of those 3 only nuclear is the relatively cost efficient option without severe externalities…well except for the occasional accident….it’s the low hanging fruit we can’t even agree on). Stopping it completely and reversing current effects means severely restricting flying, severely restricting meat consumption, reverting consumerism and standards of livings back 200 years, dropping the populations, saying goodbye to your dogs, severely restricting the use on concrete heating and airconditioning, and consigning vast populations to poverty.

btw one of the first things on the chopping block should be travel soccer. A more inefficient waste of resources man has rarely developed.
 
Grace T. said:
The problem with 1 is that we don’t all agree what’s the scope of the problem. It ranges from life is over in 10 years to nothing is happening.

the problem with 2 is that it’s also not black and white.Where the argument is which portion of it we are causing and to what extent.

then you get to apportion the blame with 2 by country. That gets you to your Asia problem.

then 3 if how much you want to offset it v how much you can live with it. Stopping it completely is more than just a solar wind and nuclear argument (and of those 3 only nuclear is the relatively cost efficient option without severe externalities…well except for the occasional accident….it’s the low hanging fruit we can’t even agree on). Stopping it completely and reversing current effects means severely restricting flying, severely restricting meat consumption, reverting consumerism and standards of livings back 200 years, dropping the populations, saying goodbye to your dogs, severely restricting the use on concrete heating and airconditioning, and consigning vast populations to poverty.

btw one of the first things on the chopping block should be travel soccer. A more inefficient waste of resources man has rarely developed.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. For MOST people, it gets rational once we agree on some basic facts. (It is happening, we are causing it, and it will cause significant problems over the long term.)

A few people, like you, prefer to throw sand in the air.

There is a rational discussion to be had. A rational discussion does not include claims like "life is over in 10 years", "nothing is happening", or "standards of living back 200 years". You apparently do not wish to be part of that discussion.
 
dad4 said:
I stand corrected. For MOST people, it gets rational once we agree on some basic facts. (It is happening, we are causing it, and it will cause significant problems over the long term.)

A few people, like you, prefer to throw sand in the air.

There is a rational discussion to be had. A rational discussion does not include claims like "life is over in 10 years", "nothing is happening", or "standards of living back 200 years". You apparently do not wish to be part of that discussion.
Click to expand...
The deniers see no problems on their flat Earth.
 
Grace T. said:
The problem with 1 is that we don’t all agree what’s the scope of the problem. It ranges from life is over in 10 years to nothing is happening.

the problem with 2 is that it’s also not black and white.Where the argument is which portion of it we are causing and to what extent.

then you get to apportion the blame with 2 by country. That gets you to your Asia problem.

then 3 if how much you want to offset it v how much you can live with it. Stopping it completely is more than just a solar wind and nuclear argument (and of those 3 only nuclear is the relatively cost efficient option without severe externalities…well except for the occasional accident….it’s the low hanging fruit we can’t even agree on). Stopping it completely and reversing current effects means severely restricting flying, severely restricting meat consumption, reverting consumerism and standards of livings back 200 years, dropping the populations, saying goodbye to your dogs, severely restricting the use on concrete heating and airconditioning, and consigning vast populations to poverty.

btw one of the first things on the chopping block should be travel soccer. A more inefficient waste of resources man has rarely developed.
Click to expand...

No matter what we do, it will be seen as unfair by some, so we should do nothing?
 
dad4 said:
I stand corrected. For MOST people, it gets rational once we agree on some basic facts. (It is happening, we are causing it, and it will cause significant problems over the long term.)

A few people, like you, prefer to throw sand in the air.

There is a rational discussion to be had. A rational discussion does not include claims like "life is over in 10 years", "nothing is happening", or "standards of living back 200 years". You apparently do not wish to be part of that discussion.
Click to expand...
For someone with such a supposedly brilliant math mind your reasoning is always so simplistic. The issue is the difference between life is over in 10 years v nothing is happening goes to the scope of the problem. You can’t do a cost benefit without know what the costs are. Completely reversing climate effects would require a huge commitment beyond just wind solar and nuclear. Im not one that is in favor of completely reversing the effects. There are a bunch of activists including our dear Greta though who want exactly that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top