All Things Environment

[foreverlax]

I could post daily a new revelation about cleaner air, and no, it is not all caused by government intervention...people want cleaner air and cleaner water. The government is merely (hopefully) the agent for the people. The people cause the change.

India and China (and Russia in spots such as Norilsk) are the major polluters in the world. But even in India, there is a new drive to clean it up. I am glad to see it.

This world will be in 50 years far better environmentally than any of us had it over the last 50. Mark my word.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/de ... id/1710278

I'll be dead in 50 years, so I guess we'll never know.

The good news, even though this administration has done nothing but cut regulations, states and companies are at least trying to do better.

[Brooklyn]

Environmental change under Trump:

[jhu72]

Audobon Society Projection

[runrussellrun]

Audobon Society Projection

guess the legacy of bird killing stays true with the ornintholgist crowd.

If it were spinning, the windmill would have killed Sancho.....and yet, the Audobon spent millions building write on a tidal marsh. (joppa flats )

yeah, I'll listen to them

https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb ... FnoECAoQBg

[Peter Brown]

The bird issue is a head fake, to be perfectly honest. It is the kind of 'news' which frightens kids, alarms moms, and allows partisans to spin the narrative that the world is coming undone.

As stated previously, the world has never been cleaner, and the world will keep being cleaner. I wish i could live long enough to make collect on a prediction bet: I believe the world in 50 years will regress to 'too cold'.

To wit, read this amazing article (and watch the YouTube clip) about a waste plant/ski hill in Denmark! The physical plant converts waste to electricity in a very green way. And Denmark, not for nothing, will be carbon neutral by 2025. Anyway, we need this kind of ingenuity in the States. I think Baltimore has one of these incinerators, with technology that is 30 years old. Baltimoreans: update your waste-to-electric technology, build a ski hill off the stack, and oh not for nothing, also support the local police so crime goes down, and voila! Perfection!

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/power-p ... ski-slope/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy7hPapymks

[holmes435]

As stated previously, the world has never been cleaner, and the world will keep being cleaner.

You got some data to back that up?

Wanna bet that the world was much cleaner pre-industrial revolution?

[RedFromMI]

As stated previously, the world has never been cleaner, and the world will keep being cleaner.

You got some data to back that up?

Wanna bet that the world was much cleaner pre-industrial revolution?

I think you win this one!

[Peter Brown]

As stated previously, the world has never been cleaner, and the world will keep being cleaner.

You got some data to back that up?

Wanna bet that the world was much cleaner pre-industrial revolution?

True and my bad on phraseology.

Below is Cleveland in 1952...a river on fire. Let me know any river in America on fire from pollutants today.

Cuayahoga.jpg (144.63 KiB) Viewed 1683 times

The point is, the environment in America has never been better, and will keep going that way. The world writ large is cleaning up too. The alarmism on the 'environment' is at times dishonest (mostly partisans seeking some edge/gain), at other times honest (mostly young people's reactions). We need to be measured in our response to alarmism, every time; that goes for 'the environment' as well as 'border crossings'. Each side is guilty of extremist language.

[holmes435]

You're switching back and forth between the US and the world. Rivers and lakes have caught on fire in China and India in the past couple of years.

What you meant to say is that the US is probably the cleanest since ~1980. However, we've seen an increase in particulate matter and a few other pollution indices since Trump's executive orders. So 2016 might have been the cleanest since the 70's and 80's. But we have indeed been able to do some good over the past 40-50 years since the Cuyahoga and other incidents spurred people and the government to act to force markets and businesses to change.

Overall I don't know that there is data to support your general claim about the world, especially as India and China start to dwarf the rest of the world. Plastic pollution is at its highest and is increasing at a near exponential rate. CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are at their highest ever and increasing, Methane concentration is at its highest, N2O concentration is at its highest, and more.

"Alarmists" made a huge dent in ozone depleting pollution and the ozone hole is healing as a result. We can greatly reduce the other pollution if we want to.

[jhu72]

As stated previously, the world has never been cleaner, and the world will keep being cleaner.

You got some data to back that up?

Wanna bet that the world was much cleaner pre-industrial revolution?

True and my bad on phraseology.

Below is Cleveland in 1952...a river on fire. Let me know any river in America on fire from pollutants today.

Cuayahoga.jpg

The point is, the environment in America has never been better, and will keep going that way. The world writ large is cleaning up too. The alarmism on the 'environment' is at times dishonest (mostly partisans seeking some edge/gain), at other times honest (mostly young people's reactions). We need to be measured in our response to alarmism, every time; that goes for 'the environment' as well as 'border crossings'. Each side is guilty of extremist language.

You mean like the Meiyu River in China. We seemed to have traded river fires for heat induced wild fires. 2017 was the year of the wild fire as the entire world, every continent saw record setting numbers of fires and acres burned in parts of those continents. No pollution there.

[Peter Brown]

You're switching back and forth between the US and the world. Rivers and lakes have caught on fire in China and India in the past couple of years.

What you meant to say is that the US is probably the cleanest since ~1980. However, we've seen an increase in particulate matter and a few other pollution indices since Trump's executive orders. So 2016 might have been the cleanest since the 70's and 80's. But we have indeed been able to do some good over the past 40-50 years since the Cuyahoga and other incidents spurred people and the government to act to force markets and businesses to change.

Overall I don't know that there is data to support your general claim about the world, especially as India and China start to dwarf the rest of the world. Plastic pollution is at its highest and is increasing at a near exponential rate. CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are at their highest ever and increasing, Methane concentration is at its highest, N2O concentration is at its highest, and more.

"Alarmists" made a huge dent in ozone depleting pollution and the ozone hole is healing as a result. We can greatly reduce the other pollution if we want to.

I am perhaps the world's greatest proponent of open space preservation. No kidding. So, I am not opposed to many government programs that encourage ways to reduce pollution. Europe seems to be at the forefront of this effort. I would like us to speed up our efforts too. China and India are getting there but will be slower than the developed world.

What we can agree on is that the world's peoples wish to live in clean air environments. Governments react to what their people want, sometimes slower than the will of the people, but ultimately they act, even in societies such as China. I believe there is a good reason why some loud alarmists such as Al Gore drop $40 million on oceanfront property (which in theory should be underwater soon)...they know the changes happening and the changes bound to happen; they have more confidence than many posters here.

I am a believer in mankind, in our ingenuity to solve complex problems. Let people create, and solutions arrive fast. Control people, and solutions come slowly if at all.

[RedFromMI]

The idea that oceanfront property will _soon_ be underwater is not actually what is predicted currently. However the sea levels should continue to rise because of average temperature increases. The more temperature increase the larger the sea level rise. If the temp goes up enough, you can get a large amount of freshwater ice entering the ocean and creating extra rise, and also a feedback effect which accelerates warming (hot summers melt more ice/snow which allows less energy to be reflected back into space).

But the sea level has already risen some due to climate change. Louisiana does not have the same area as when I was growing up in the 60s, and a part of that is the small water level rise (most is that by channelizing the Mississippi we have cut off flooding into the delta and kept the natural flood cycle from continually refilling the delta with silt).

The biggest effects of climate change will be in the extra energy (mostly absorbed into the oceans) driving more extreme weather. Some of the more recent hurricanes impact, particularly in terms of total rainfall/flooding rather than extreme wind have been driven by this. Sometimes it is just extreme winds, like in the Bahamas, along with an extremely low velocity of the motion of the storm (stalling). The energy in the water is greater, and therefore the storms get more energy themselves.

Other climate effects will be in changes in rainfall amounts and patterns of wet/drought conditions.

[jhu72]

You're switching back and forth between the US and the world. Rivers and lakes have caught on fire in China and India in the past couple of years.

What you meant to say is that the US is probably the cleanest since ~1980. However, we've seen an increase in particulate matter and a few other pollution indices since Trump's executive orders. So 2016 might have been the cleanest since the 70's and 80's. But we have indeed been able to do some good over the past 40-50 years since the Cuyahoga and other incidents spurred people and the government to act to force markets and businesses to change.

Overall I don't know that there is data to support your general claim about the world, especially as India and China start to dwarf the rest of the world. Plastic pollution is at its highest and is increasing at a near exponential rate. CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations are at their highest ever and increasing, Methane concentration is at its highest, N2O concentration is at its highest, and more.

"Alarmists" made a huge dent in ozone depleting pollution and the ozone hole is healing as a result. We can greatly reduce the other pollution if we want to.

I am perhaps the world's greatest proponent of open space preservation. No kidding. So, I am not opposed to many government programs that encourage ways to reduce pollution. Europe seems to be at the forefront of this effort. I would like us to speed up our efforts too. China and India are getting there but will be slower than the developed world.

What we can agree on is that the world's peoples wish to live in clean air environments. Governments react to what their people want, sometimes slower than the will of the people, but ultimately they act, even in societies such as China. I believe there is a good reason why some loud alarmists such as Al Gore drop $40 million on oceanfront property (which in theory should be underwater soon)...they know the changes happening and the changes bound to happen; they have more confidence than many posters here.

I am a believer in mankind, in our ingenuity to solve complex problems. Let people create, and solutions arrive fast. Control people, and solutions come slowly if at all.

… am I to take from this that somehow believing in climate change results in controlling people? Are their people here controlling people? Or should I just take this as a homily? Sorry, it is not clear.

[jhu72]

The idea that oceanfront property will _soon_ be underwater is not actually what is predicted currently. However the sea levels should continue to rise because of average temperature increases. The more temperature increase the larger the sea level rise. If the temp goes up enough, you can get a large amount of freshwater ice entering the ocean and creating extra rise, and also a feedback effect which accelerates warming (hot summers melt more ice/snow which allows less energy to be reflected back into space).

But the sea level has already risen some due to climate change. Louisiana does not have the same area as when I was growing up in the 60s, and a part of that is the small water level rise (most is that by channelizing the Mississippi we have cut off flooding into the delta and kept the natural flood cycle from continually refilling the delta with silt).

The biggest effects of climate change will be in the extra energy (mostly absorbed into the oceans) driving more extreme weather. Some of the more recent hurricanes impact, particularly in terms of total rainfall/flooding rather than extreme wind have been driven by this. Sometimes it is just extreme winds, like in the Bahamas, along with an extremely low velocity of the motion of the storm (stalling). The energy in the water is greater, and therefore the storms get more energy themselves.

Other climate effects will be in changes in rainfall amounts and patterns of wet/drought conditions.

This business about people still purchasing beachfront property has been shown numerous times to be a bogus argument in regards to climate change. The relevant question is when and that is a local question.

[cradleandshoot]

The idea that oceanfront property will _soon_ be underwater is not actually what is predicted currently. However the sea levels should continue to rise because of average temperature increases. The more temperature increase the larger the sea level rise. If the temp goes up enough, you can get a large amount of freshwater ice entering the ocean and creating extra rise, and also a feedback effect which accelerates warming (hot summers melt more ice/snow which allows less energy to be reflected back into space).

But the sea level has already risen some due to climate change. Louisiana does not have the same area as when I was growing up in the 60s, and a part of that is the small water level rise (most is that by channelizing the Mississippi we have cut off flooding into the delta and kept the natural flood cycle from continually refilling the delta with silt).

The biggest effects of climate change will be in the extra energy (mostly absorbed into the oceans) driving more extreme weather. Some of the more recent hurricanes impact, particularly in terms of total rainfall/flooding rather than extreme wind have been driven by this. Sometimes it is just extreme winds, like in the Bahamas, along with an extremely low velocity of the motion of the storm (stalling). The energy in the water is greater, and therefore the storms get more energy themselves.

Other climate effects will be in changes in rainfall amounts and patterns of wet/drought conditions.

This business about people still purchasing beachfront property has been shown numerous times to be a bogus argument in regards to climate change. The relevant question is when and that is a local question.

Wrongo good doctor. As is always the case the relevant question when discussing CC/GW is how much money there is to be made and how much power over the people can be hijacked away from them. The chicken little brigade is now working feverishly to guilt people from eating cheeseburgers... to save the planet you understand...

[cradleandshoot]

Okay I need to make this reply more kinder and gentler to those sensitive and kind hearted folks on this forum. Jane Fonda has thrown her hat into the environmental extremist camp. I found that as a big surprise... I thought Hanoi Jane was dead.

[Peter Brown]

This business about people still purchasing beachfront property has been shown numerous times to be a bogus argument in regards to climate change. The relevant question is when and that is a local question.

Why is that a "bogus argument"? We are told repeatedly that all polar ice is melting and soon sea levels will consume Miami, New York City, Boston, and so forth. We could post thousands of articles stating so.

If sea levels rise like is warned, wouldn't it be smarter to acquire land anywhere but the oceanfront? Both Al Gore and Barrack Obama are beach buyers. You explain that.

[Peter Brown]

Wrongo good doctor. As is always the case the relevant question when discussing CC/GW is how much money there is to be made and how much power over the people can be hijacked away from them. The chicken little brigade is now working feverishly to guilt people from eating cheeseburgers... to save the planet you understand...

I agree with you...to some extent. The amount of grift occurring inside the CC/GW alarm bells is extraordinary, and yet, much of the debate's outcomes is actually reasonably attractive to all of us. Dealing with plastic, converting solid waste to energy, coming up with new clean energy sources, promoting electric where it is efficient: this is all very good stuff that all of us presumably agree is smart and worth exploring. And most of it is happening.

Where the environmental alarmists lose me is when they shame people into not debating the issues, where they demand obedience or else.

[3rdPersonPlural]

This business about people still purchasing beachfront property has been shown numerous times to be a bogus argument in regards to climate change. The relevant question is when and that is a local question.

Why is that a "bogus argument"? We are told repeatedly that all polar ice is melting and soon sea levels will consume Miami, New York City, Boston, and so forth. We could post thousands of articles stating so.

If sea levels rise like is warned, wouldn't it be smarter to acquire land anywhere but the oceanfront? Both Al Gore and Barrack Obama are beach buyers. You explain that.

Nobody looks past 30 years in residential RE deals, and a 100 year lease on a plot of land is considered to be long enough to build a skyscraper.

The critical part is that we have to make material changes in the short term, before the long term calamities roll in. Don't misunderstand short-sighted residential (5 to 10 years) and commercial decisions (you'll make money from day one if you planned well) lead you to believe that in the long term insurance will have paid off and our kids will be scrambling......

[cradleandshoot]

The idea that oceanfront property will _soon_ be underwater is not actually what is predicted currently. However the sea levels should continue to rise because of average temperature increases. The more temperature increase the larger the sea level rise. If the temp goes up enough, you can get a large amount of freshwater ice entering the ocean and creating extra rise, and also a feedback effect which accelerates warming (hot summers melt more ice/snow which allows less energy to be reflected back into space).

But the sea level has already risen some due to climate change. Louisiana does not have the same area as when I was growing up in the 60s, and a part of that is the small water level rise (most is that by channelizing the Mississippi we have cut off flooding into the delta and kept the natural flood cycle from continually refilling the delta with silt).

The biggest effects of climate change will be in the extra energy (mostly absorbed into the oceans) driving more extreme weather. Some of the more recent hurricanes impact, particularly in terms of total rainfall/flooding rather than extreme wind have been driven by this. Sometimes it is just extreme winds, like in the Bahamas, along with an extremely low velocity of the motion of the storm (stalling). The energy in the water is greater, and therefore the storms get more energy themselves.

Other climate effects will be in changes in rainfall amounts and patterns of wet/drought conditions.

"However the sea levels should continue to rise because of average temperature increases." That is certainly some reassuring scientific wisdom there. I have read over and over and over and over that the best and brightest minds of science understand CC/GW backwards/forwards/inside out and upside down. Your reassuring terminology is that it SHOULD happen based on what you all think you understand today. I don't have the wisdom and knowledge that you possess but I do know what a guess is. I should grant you some slack here because after all... it is an educated guess. Again this is a question based on my lack of understanding and your expertise. If you know what the average temperature increase is can you not convert that in a formula that projects what the average sea rise WILL BE? SHOULD BE is making a guess off of what the data a computer model is giving you. WILL BE means you can prove what it is that you theorize. If you are going to emphatically state your position that you unquestionably understand what is happening, is it too much to ask for a specific time frame and how this problem will manifest itself on what part of the world and when it will become a cataclysmic disaster? As of this moment all the information we are being given by the best and the brightest is that its gonna be really, really, really devastating We don't know where or when or how but as Dr Indiana Jones once said... trust me