Trump to roll back Obama-era climate actions, power plant emissions rule

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Well congratulation...you have thrown in and refuted arguments I have not even made. 

 

There are no climate scientists who think that global warming is not real and not caused by modern industrial co2 emissions.

 

This really a question of do you believe modern climate science and have you examined the evidence?

[OriZ 3,157]

36 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

This is an interesting comment.  I often think about this as all the talk about driverless cars comes up.  Can you imagine how long it will take to completely turn over the entire world's fleet of cars and trucks?  This is just a guess on my part, but I am thinking 50+ years.

You know, when they first started coming out that's actually something I thought about and I actually think short term it could end up causing more accidents because you will end up with different cars on the road with vastly different reaction times or driving behaviors, they can clash. Imagine one car automatically making a sudden stop for some reason and the car behind it might end up rear ending it(of course they can avoid it by keeping their distance but most people don't, however, usually there's still enough time to react, but a "machine" might react faster than the human driver infront of you would, leaving you less time to react). I don't want to go too much off topic but there are other scenarios too where it could do more harm than good, until everyone's in sync.

[CaliCat 3,957]

On 3/28/2017 at 10:14 AM, ccneat said:

science doesn't work like propaganda.

 

 

To understand climate change and the effect of humankind on the planet you need to understand a little bit of science, chemistry, and physics. That requires a level of education that most climate deniers don't have. It's like trying to explain nuclear fission to children. Climate change will have to be addressed by the next administration.

[Póg mo 1,749]

On 3/28/2017 at 9:09 PM, OriZ said:

There are longer time cycles in play as well, but there's definitely a 60 year cycle as well. 

Sure, a 60 year cycle should be easy to show.  Some charts would nice.

[Póg mo 1,749]

There is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation 

 

Of course this is just one particular type of climate cycle. Of course just because there are climate cycles, doesn't mean other forms of climate change are occuring. I understand that there is now more than enough models and evidence to show that major weather events are occuring at a frequency that would not happen using ordinary climate cycles.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Póg mo

[Póg mo 1,749]

https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather

[Póg mo 1,749]

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

 

Unprecedented summer warmth and flooding, forest fires, drought and torrential rain -- extreme weather events are occurring more and more often, but now an international team of climate scientists has found a connection between many extreme weather events and the impact climate change is having on the jet stream.

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

 

Unprecedented summer warmth and flooding, forest fires, drought and torrential rain -- extreme weather events are occurring more and more often, but now an international team of climate scientists has found a connection between many extreme weather events and the impact climate change is having on the jet stream.

 

 

All fake news. Climate change doesn't exist unless Putin says so.

[OriZ 3,157]

8 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Sure, a 60 year cycle should be easy to show.  Some charts would nice.

 

8 hours ago, Póg mo said:

There is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation 

 

Of course this is just one particular type of climate cycle. Of course just because there are climate cycles, doesn't mean other forms of climate change are occuring. I understand that there is now more than enough models and evidence to show that major weather events are occuring at a frequency that would not happen using ordinary climate cycles.

 

Well there's really no need to now, you already did my work for me. The chart you posted clearly shows a 60 year cycle in play, and the next low in temperatures is expected sometime around 2059. That's when they should start rising again. I just figured since every time I do post charts and post proof right in front of people's faces, they usually just ignore it because they have nothing smart to say in response, and so I end up wasting my time so I figured why bother. Anyhow, I never denied that humans contribute to climate change, that is why I said in my first post that the highs are higher and the lows are higher as well in each cycle, which means the trend is up. in part because of human involvement.

The point that I was trying to make is that while humans may play a role one can't ignore the fact there's other factors in play here as well. Regardless of the extent of human involvement in global warming, whatever one believes - that it is extreme, minimal or anywhere inbetween, we should of course try to minimize it as much as possible.  At the same time there has to be a balance - we should try and do everything we can to contribute to it as minimally as possible if not at all, while at the same time living our life and still allowing progress.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

14 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

 

Well there's really no need to now, you already did my work for me. The chart you posted clearly shows a 60 year cycle in play, and the next low in temperatures is expected sometime around 2059. That's when they should start rising again. I just figured since every time I do post charts and post proof right in front of people's faces, they usually just ignore it because they have nothing smart to say in response, and so I end up wasting my time so I figured why bother. Anyhow, I never denied that humans contribute to climate change, that is why I said in my first post that the highs are higher and the lows are higher as well in each cycle, which means the trend is up. in part because of human involvement.

The point that I was trying to make is that while humans may play a role one can't ignore the fact there's other factors in play here as well. Regardless of the extent of human involvement in global warming, whatever one believes - that it is extreme, minimal or anywhere inbetween, we should of course try to minimize it as much as possible.  At the same time there has to be a balance - we should try and do everything we can to contribute to it as minimally as possible if not at all, while at the same time living our life and still allowing progress.

Well said. 

[OriZ 3,157]

9 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Well said. 

Thanks, I'll use your quote as a correction since I can't edit it anymore, I meant 2035, not 2059. 2059 is where the next top would be expected. 

[OriZ 3,157]

On 3/29/2017 at 10:24 AM, OriZ said:

You know, when they first started coming out that's actually something I thought about and I actually think short term it could end up causing more accidents because you will end up with different cars on the road with vastly different reaction times or driving behaviors, they can clash. Imagine one car automatically making a sudden stop for some reason and the car behind it might end up rear ending it(of course they can avoid it by keeping their distance but most people don't, however, usually there's still enough time to react, but a "machine" might react faster than the human driver infront of you would, leaving you less time to react). I don't want to go too much off topic but there are other scenarios too where it could do more harm than good, until everyone's in sync.

It just wanted to beat the light. LOL

 

Uber Crash Shows Human Traits in Self-Driving Software

Company's self-driving SUV 'just wanted to beat the light,' eyewitness tells police

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-29/uber-crash-shows-human-traits-in-self-driving-software?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Edited March 31, 2017 by OriZ

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

32 minutes ago, OriZ said:

It just wanted to beat the light. LOL

 

Uber Crash Shows Human Traits in Self-Driving Software

Company's self-driving SUV 'just wanted to beat the light,' eyewitness tells police

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-29/uber-crash-shows-human-traits-in-self-driving-software?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Uber as a company needs to get their act together. Stealing from alphabet, faulty code, sexual harassment and rageaholic ceo. My worst investment in 5 years.

[OriZ 3,157]

6 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Uber as a company needs to get their act together. Stealing from alphabet, faulty code, sexual harassment and rageaholic ceo. My worst investment in 5 years.

It was a good concept but no way to remain exclusive and when looking for other venues, yeah, they're kind of running out of things to do that they can do successfully. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole but then again I would not touch anything right now with a ten foot pole.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

It was a good concept but no way to remain exclusive and when looking for other venues, yeah, they're kind of running out of things to do that they can do successfully. I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole but then again I would not touch anything right now with a ten foot pole.

Tesla!