Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Human caused climate change is a fact. I've been following the subject for 40 years and the only constant is we keep underestimating people's impact. I will leave it to you to explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do anything.
Even if the US completely stopped outputting CO2 today, developing countries like China and India are just getting started. You can fret all you like but nothing is going to change anytime soon. I would love to buy a Tesla model 3 if it didn’t cost 44,000 dollars. Those of us who live in the northeast can’t ride our bikes all year long. Public transportation in my city is pretty limited. If solar power can be made cheaper I would look into it but for now it’s out of reach, for me at least.
No-one can do everything to solve climate change but that doesn't mean you can't do something - it doesn't need to be all or nothing. Something you could start today is eat less meat. You don't need to become a vegetarian but go meat free a couple of days a week is a start. Next time you replace a light bulb, get an LED. If you have a bike and you can ride it for a few months a year, do that. Check if there are any electricity providers that use renewables for generation. Put an extra layer on and turn the heating down. Drive a little slower. Next time you buy an appliance, look at its energy rating. Sell some stuff and buy something second hand. These are all things that can save you money too - one day it might help you afford that electric car or solar panels. The more we do to shift to a sustainable economy, the easier it becomes - we're at a point now where solar PV, LEDs, and electric cars are all competitive or better than the old less efficient versions of themselves.
You’re points are good and well taken. My household implements much of that. You can’t even find incandescent bulbs where I live. We get our power from Niagara Falls. I work for a small company with a small carbon footprint. I buy used cars. My wife bought a used iPhone. We do all those things, but I hate how you get attacked for pointing out the real state of things, which is that things change slowly sometimes. I was accused of being anti science. I can’t tell you how much science I’ve read on all sorts of subjects. Let’s not forget, however, that science gave us the ability to utilize fossil fuels, fission nuclear material, make weapons, and produce all sorts of unnecessary plastic junk. Science is a double edged sword. Hopefully we can solve these problems. I feel optimistic that we can. In the meantime we need Elon Musk to get us to Mars, just in case.
"As people begin to experience severe weather events with greater frequency, we expect an increasing need for confidence and preparedness in the arena of personal safety and the well-being of loved ones," the company wrote in a submission to the non-profit Carbon Disclosure Project, seen by Bloomberg. The CDP grades companies on their awareness and response to climate change.
Products like iPhones "can serve as a flashlight or a siren; they can provide first aid instructions; they can act as a radio; and they can be charged for many days via car batteries or even hand cranks," Apple said.
It's not clear whether Apple cited any downsides to the company's business as a result of climate change. Some direct impacts could include property damage from fire, storms, or flooding, and tougher water access at facilities like its Arizona data center. Apple has a presence in a number of at-risk places, ranging from San Francisco to Tokyo.
This reasoning is weird, if not of not much significance. All this is saying is that cellular connected devices will allow for emergency warnings and emergency information. How is this any different from today? Whether Apple can sell more iPhones because of this is not related. The market is supersaturated, and the suggestion here is that the remaining 10% to 15% of “eligible” people will get smartphones?
If you are a migrant, there will be a lot of them in a slow moving disaster of human ugliness, a smartphone and a 10 W solar panel charger will be an all important lifeline. 300 W panels + rechargeable batteries is and will be hugely important to billions of people living in equatorial regions. Small and portable battery powered heat pumps will be hugely important. Small portable dew collection devices will be hugely important for many many people.
For more prosperous folks, closed cycle water systems for houses, buildings, farms will be hugely important. Ie, storing waste water and rain water, treating it, and feeding it back to the house. Dew collection systems can add significant amounts of water in many locations. Water capture from the air will be hugely important. Direct carbon capture and converted to gas for cooking can be hugely important and beneficial.
These are all product opportunities for companies, and maybe Apple will go into this line of business. They may make more money selling these type of devices than phones. I’d love it if they make these types of products.
The people in Paradise, CA could have used an early warning to evacuate but there is no way to do that currently, If Apple wants to do something to actually help people deal with environmental disasters, perhaps a world wide local emergency alert system would be a good start. Make sure it can be used by people who have Android phones as well.
There is already an emergency alert system . It’s called a radio something Apple took out of or disabled from the iPhone because it’s more important to make money from Apps and Apple Music streaming than give people a way to get alert information when the cell lines are down after a hurricane. Queue the “everybody can just buy a Portable radio crowd”
You do realize that is a huge false equivalency, right?
It's hilarious how AGW believers love to condescendingly shout "science!" at everyone, then use complete ridiculous arguments like this one.
Lets use a slightly more relatable analogy, the weather, which scientists can't reliably predict more than 2 days out. And we're expected to accept that there will be a climate armageddon coming in 60 years? Nope. And on top of that, the models have been wrong over and over.. So, nope again.
So, who is it you find more convincing and more legitimate and more convincing than the scientists? Fauxnews? The Coal Industry? Exxon? Or, maybe one of the Russian trolls on Facebook?
You do realize that is a huge false equivalency, right?
It's hilarious how AGW believers love to condescendingly shout "science!" at everyone, then use complete ridiculous arguments like this one.
Lets use a slightly more relatable analogy, the weather, which scientists can't reliably predict more than 2 days out. And we're expected to accept that there will be a climate armageddon coming in 60 years? Nope. And on top of that, the models have been wrong over and over.. So, nope again.
So, who is it you find more convincing and more legitimate and more convincing than the scientists? Fauxnews? The Coal Industry? Exxon? Or, maybe one of the Russian trolls on Facebook?
Huh? I'm not sure what your post has to do with anything, other than showing your apparent bias. But if you must know, I find facts convincing.
What I don't find convincing is absurd propaganda, hypocrisy, and misinformation, which is so often seen from those promoting AGW. If it's such a genuine catastrophe, why bother with the bs? Seems like a question more people should be asking.
This article prompts me to get hang cranks / solar cel USB charger which I didn't realize it exists.
Don't worry guy this is all marketing nonsense. Science has yet to conclusively prove that the warming over the past several millennia is human caused. Rather it is pretty much a given that it isn't human caused.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
This is what the democrats live for. By making people lives worse they gain power. There is nothing to indicate that humans have cause current conditions. Further current weather extremes are actually rather mild considering what has happened in the past.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Yeah, f**k the climate. It's not like all that 97% of the scientific community (some of them dedicate their lives to study climate and the impact humans have on it) are right, right?
That 97% figure is total nonsense based on a poll taken of scientist attending a climate conference. In other words scientist with a vested interest in promoting the idea that the climate will change drastically due to human activity. In other words we are not talking about a ethical sampling of the scientific community.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Human caused climate change is a fact. I've been following the subject for 40 years and the only constant is we keep underestimating people's impact. I will leave it to you to explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do anything.
It is a theory not fact. A theory that has a history of really terrible scientific practice.
All one needs to do is to plot a line through the historical climate data for the last 10,000 years and you will see we are right where the overall trend puts us.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Human caused climate change is a fact. I've been following the subject for 40 years and the only constant is we keep underestimating people's impact. I will leave it to you to explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do anything.
No offense but that's nonsense. Look at all the scientists that were feeding Al Gore with all this misinformation. Just because science says it doesn't mean it's right. Scientists have constantly been proven wrong. Gore talked about polar bears dying in his documentary and scientists said they would. They were all wrong. The polar bear population keeps increasing and they are showing they can adapt with less ice. I'm not going to disagree that humans have caused a ton of damage to earth, but all these claims it's mostly humans are nonsense. Glaciers melting, warming oceans, ice sheets shrinking, etc is nothing new. Another huge natural factor that has caused drastic climate changes in the past are shifts in Earth's orbital tilt. That's happening now. There is no proven science that accurately will say how much greenhouse emissions the world needs to reduce or if its even possible to make a difference at this point. Natural carbon emissions are a lot more than what humans create.
This seems to be the main point of contention for folks who disbelieve climate change...Al Gore! I swear had he never connected himself with the topic it wouldn't be so widely and incorrectly disregarded. Then to make matters worse he introduced the ridiculous idea of carbon credits being bought to offset our own carbon footprint.. yet he still lives/lived in some outlandish mansion with crazy electric bills. So all people see is hypocrisy and a rich person using money to wash away their own negative impact.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
I hate to tell you but worldwide government mandates are the only chance to fight climate change.
It also seems kind of silly to suggest things such as mass defortestion in combination with significant carbon output wouldn’t likely have an appreciable impact on the climate any more than saying lighting a fire in a small room won’t effect air quality. I certainly see appreciable changes where I live in Michigan.
Even if scientists somehow got got it wrong, which I doubt, planning to avoid the potential crisis seems prudent. I’m certainly not taking your word for it.
Also combating climate change will be very profitable for the private sector, and if done correctly won’t have serious impact on people’s lives.
The only possible way you can have an impact world wide is mandatory population control which of course isn't something that is easy to get people to agree too.
Actually the use of wood products is one of the smartest things we can do if carbon in the atmosphere is a real problem. New forest growth would rapidly attach carbon in the atmosphere.
As for visible changes, living in upstate NY (similar to Michigan) I've seen nothing to indicate a significant climate change. You still have good winters and bad, hot dry summers and wet ones. If climate change is real, there needs to be verifiable changes that reflect the theory used to promote this "science". The problem is the climate models really have failed to explain the last two decades.
The problem with climate science is the lack of precision. It isn't like physics that theories can be tested often to incredible accuracy. However when you have the climate change community promoting theories as proven when they haven't even come close to doing so then you generate incredible disbelief.
Profitable for the people heavily invested in the idea of climate change! This is the problem as the motivation here is to screw over the population in favor of self enrichment..
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Nonsense. 7 billion people can affect a closed system quite readily, it’s not arrogance. The greenhouse gases model is readily accepted by the world’s actual scientists, only US conservatives seem to have a problem with science. Leave your car running in the garage and say it’s arrogant to believe we can affect a closed space.
The problem is not all scientist accept those models. Mainly because they have not produced reasonable results that match what is happening now. I'm not even sure where this nonsense comes from because by definition if you are a scientist you must question. Unfortunately this has become political ammo used to scare people so rational questions are suppressed.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Human caused climate change is a fact. I've been following the subject for 40 years and the only constant is we keep underestimating people's impact. I will leave it to you to explain to your grandchildren why you didn't do anything.
Even if the US completely stopped outputting CO2 today, developing countries like China and India are just getting started. You can fret all you like but nothing is going to change anytime soon. I would love to buy a Tesla model 3 if it didn’t cost 44,000 dollars. Those of us who live in the northeast can’t ride our bikes all year long. Public transportation in my city is pretty limited. If solar power can be made cheaper I would look into it but for now it’s out of reach, for me at least.
So because you personally can’t buy an electric car, nothing should be done by anyone? You think maybe industrial polluters might have a larger impact than individuals? Or because other countries are outputting CO2, no other countries should reduce emissions? What kind of logic is that?
I swear, the anti-science types like those on this forum will be the literal death of us all as a society. Bet some of you were convinced when Jim Inhofe brought that snowball into congress. Fucking infuriating.
No the problem here is that the elitist will go out and buy electric cars and all sort of other so called green solutions and then demean people that can't afford the bill.
As for industrial pollution that must be addressed but CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is in fact required as part of the life cycle on earth. Nothing yet produced has indicated to me that the minuscule changes in CO2 in the atmosphere have done anything at all with respect to the climate.
The death to society will be when science is so controlled politically that we can't get to the root causes of the many problems we have in this world. Frankly one has to be incredibly gullible to even consider some of the stuff that gets attached to climate change.
It's all a moot point. According to our favorite NY congresswoman the world will end in 12 years anyway.
Nobody has said that, and certainly not AOC. If you’re going to deny reality, at least try to be intellectually honest while doing so.
Yes, AOC certainly said that, and when asked about it later, she doubled down on it. Alarmist? Yes. Logical? No.
Her beliefs, and the fact that so many feel she's credible, explains a lot about our current political climate.
How somebody that is so ignorant can get elected is beyond me. You would think that people would simply tell such people to go to hell after hearing these predictions year after year for decades now. We have a far greater chance of a major climate shift and the death of billions, from a super volcano explosion.
It is nonsense like this from people like AOC, that has rubbished the credibility of everyone involved in climate research. A scientist with any self respect would stand up right now and reject this proclamation.
It's all a moot point. According to our favorite NY congresswoman the world will end in 12 years anyway.
Nobody has said that, and certainly not AOC. If you’re going to deny reality, at least try to be intellectually honest while doing so.
Yes, AOC certainly said that, and when asked about it later, she doubled down on it. Alarmist? Yes. Logical? No.
Her beliefs, and the fact that so many feel she's credible, explains a lot about our current political climate.
How somebody that is so ignorant can get elected is beyond me. You would think that people would simply tell such people to go to hell after hearing these predictions year after year for decades now. We have a far greater chance of a major climate shift and the death of billions, from a super volcano explosion.
It is nonsense like this from people like AOC, that has rubbished the credibility of everyone involved in climate research. A scientist with any self respect would stand up right now and reject this proclamation.
She may best be described as a “useful idiot” for the Democrats to use as a goad against the President. I doubt any of the Democratic leadership is comfortable with her fact-free assertions, no matter what they say in public. And believe me, none of those DC scumbags want their own income taxes to go up to 70%.
You do realize that is a huge false equivalency, right?
It's hilarious how AGW believers love to condescendingly shout "science!" at everyone, then use complete ridiculous arguments like this one.
Lets use a slightly more relatable analogy, the weather, which scientists can't reliably predict more than 2 days out. And we're expected to accept that there will be a climate armageddon coming in 60 years? Nope. And on top of that, the models have been wrong over and over.. So, nope again.
So, who is it you find more convincing and more legitimate and more convincing than the scientists? Fauxnews? The Coal Industry? Exxon? Or, maybe one of the Russian trolls on Facebook?
Facts are convincing. The problem is climate research isn't about facts, at best it is about guesses that may or may not be corrects. Physics and engineering has progressed to the point that may theories and processes are accepted as fact, due to years of verification, research and Challenging those facts. For one nobody is challenging the Global warming theories without a lot of hate being thrown at them. Second those models (what most of this sciences is based on) fail to actually predict current conditions. Thus without verification you can't call man made global warming a fact.
By the way Exxon has done more climate research, especially with data collection, than you might imagine.
Climate constantly changes, to think we can actually have any impact on significantly altering the climate is the height of arrogance. It's been warmer in the past than today and its been cooler, we know this..... but somehow altering a carbon footprint is going to save us? This is not to say that we should not try and be prudent in the use of resources, but the proposed changes all mandate government control of your life and all that will do is make things worse for people, not better.
Nonsense. 7 billion people can affect a closed system quite readily, it’s not arrogance. The greenhouse gases model is readily accepted by the world’s actual scientists, only US conservatives seem to have a problem with science. Leave your car running in the garage and say it’s arrogant to believe we can affect a closed space.
The problem is not all scientist accept those models. Mainly because they have not produced reasonable results that match what is happening now. I'm not even sure where this nonsense comes from because by definition if you are a scientist you must question. Unfortunately this has become political ammo used to scare people so rational questions are suppressed.
You are being misled by whoever is driving these beliefs. The physics of planetary climate is perfectly fine, and has been repeatedly tested against planets with atmospheres, obviously including our own as time has marched forward. The questioning is fine - just keep asking (you won’t be the first person asking these questions and they all have already been answered) - but these are just your basic heat transfer processes that are used to model Venus’ hot house, Mars’ cold thin air, Titan’s nitrogen cycle, so on and so forth.
It’s the same heat transfer processes that’ll predict what temperature a car’s interior will get to and how long it will take to get to that temperature. It’s the same heat transfer processes used for every single thing we do in one fashion or the other. It’s not a fully open or fully closed window either, it can all be dynamically done based on the state of how open the windows are.
On the question of the 97% of scientists, I never liked it as an argumentum as it is an appeal to authority. Not only that, it’s wrong, it’s more like 99.9% of “experts” or people who have reviewed the material all agree on the basic physics of greenhouse gasses will drive up Earth’s surface temperatures.
They also were responsible for the Space Shuttle Challenger and Colombia. No thanks.
Speaking of false equivalency, the accidents and the physics and engineering to get them to work are entirely different. Rockets obviously work. That’s nothing but math models of the physics involved. That they failed isn’t because of bad math models. Failure is almost always due to engineering and decision process errors. Or Apple themed, no one doubts Apple can create a great piece of hardware, but they sometimes build a piece of hardware that not enough people wants, like the 2013 Mac Pro. The physics and engineering was awesome. What the product was and how it served the market, nothing but question marks and ultimately a failure.
The Challenger and Columbia accidents weren’t issues with modeling physics. They were process errors. Challenger was caused by not following the rules of how and when the equipment should be used. The physics required that the rule be put in place, or there would be unknown or dire consequences. Columbia was caused by a bet that falling debris wouldn’t impact the mission, and it stemmed from design decisions in the 70s. The design requirement was that there should not be any debris falling on to the Shuttle Orbiter. A bet was made in the development phase that falling foam, ice, etc, wouldn’t cause an issue, and the bet was eventually lost.
For global warming, the physics is telling us that increasing CO2 concentrations prevents infrared radiation (from sunlight heated Earth) from radiating out into space - nitrogen and oxygen do not block infrared radiation - and therefore surface temperatures will go up and cause all these all things. That’s the basic physics. The green house analogy is as perfect an analogy as there can be for this.
As it was with Challenger and Columbia, the human process for dealing with what the physics is telling us is rather muddled like dinosaurs in a tar pit. Just a mess.
Comments
This reasoning is weird, if not of not much significance. All this is saying is that cellular connected devices will allow for emergency warnings and emergency information. How is this any different from today? Whether Apple can sell more iPhones because of this is not related. The market is supersaturated, and the suggestion here is that the remaining 10% to 15% of “eligible” people will get smartphones?
If you are a migrant, there will be a lot of them in a slow moving disaster of human ugliness, a smartphone and a 10 W solar panel charger will be an all important lifeline. 300 W panels + rechargeable batteries is and will be hugely important to billions of people living in equatorial regions. Small and portable battery powered heat pumps will be hugely important. Small portable dew collection devices will be hugely important for many many people.
For more prosperous folks, closed cycle water systems for houses, buildings, farms will be hugely important. Ie, storing waste water and rain water, treating it, and feeding it back to the house. Dew collection systems can add significant amounts of water in many locations. Water capture from the air will be hugely important. Direct carbon capture and converted to gas for cooking can be hugely important and beneficial.
These are all product opportunities for companies, and maybe Apple will go into this line of business. They may make more money selling these type of devices than phones. I’d love it if they make these types of products.
You are being misled by whoever is driving these beliefs. The physics of planetary climate is perfectly fine, and has been repeatedly tested against planets with atmospheres, obviously including our own as time has marched forward. The questioning is fine - just keep asking (you won’t be the first person asking these questions and they all have already been answered) - but these are just your basic heat transfer processes that are used to model Venus’ hot house, Mars’ cold thin air, Titan’s nitrogen cycle, so on and so forth.
It’s the same heat transfer processes that’ll predict what temperature a car’s interior will get to and how long it will take to get to that temperature. It’s the same heat transfer processes used for every single thing we do in one fashion or the other. It’s not a fully open or fully closed window either, it can all be dynamically done based on the state of how open the windows are.
On the question of the 97% of scientists, I never liked it as an argumentum as it is an appeal to authority. Not only that, it’s wrong, it’s more like 99.9% of “experts” or people who have reviewed the material all agree on the basic physics of greenhouse gasses will drive up Earth’s surface temperatures.
The Challenger and Columbia accidents weren’t issues with modeling physics. They were process errors. Challenger was caused by not following the rules of how and when the equipment should be used. The physics required that the rule be put in place, or there would be unknown or dire consequences. Columbia was caused by a bet that falling debris wouldn’t impact the mission, and it stemmed from design decisions in the 70s. The design requirement was that there should not be any debris falling on to the Shuttle Orbiter. A bet was made in the development phase that falling foam, ice, etc, wouldn’t cause an issue, and the bet was eventually lost.
For global warming, the physics is telling us that increasing CO2 concentrations prevents infrared radiation (from sunlight heated Earth) from radiating out into space - nitrogen and oxygen do not block infrared radiation - and therefore surface temperatures will go up and cause all these all things. That’s the basic physics. The green house analogy is as perfect an analogy as there can be for this.
As it was with Challenger and Columbia, the human process for dealing with what the physics is telling us is rather muddled like dinosaurs in a tar pit. Just a mess.