• This website or discussions about the COVID-19 virus outbreak should be taken as entertainment. For official information on how to plan and prepare, please go to The Offical CDC Homepage By Clicking Here
  • Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Downeastnc

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
2,481
Location
Greenville NC
I largely agree. But I am open to the fact that I don't know for sure. None of us really do. And when you see money/power get injected as an influencing agent into something like this, it really makes me question, even harder, the validity of it. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that we are affecting our planet or even the temperature of it. But how much? I don't think it is possible to say for sure. Certainly, when someone assures you that they absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt the answer to that question, I immediately become skeptical. I don't even know if it's POSSIBLE to know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better. But dire predictions of the world ending and of great calamity have been around forever. We're still here. All that said, we should still do our best to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, manage waste better, and all pitch in to make our environment a better place than it currently is.
The question is too political at this point, its all agenda driven....thus any real meaningful answers are hard to come by. The best path forward is obviously murky and clouded by all this political drivel but in the end getting off fossil fuels and fighting/reducing waste etc is is important and needed more urgently than most on the right will admit, and its also no where near as dire as the left wants us to believe.

For me its simple, the Earth has a natural cycle to control CO2.....there is variability in this system like any other natural system.....things like ocean currents, continent placement, where we are in one of the numerous orbit cycles etc....this stuff all factors in and we don't have a good idea of how it all works.....but without a doubt man taking 35 BILLION metric tons of sequestered CO2 annually and releasing it into that system is upsetting the balance there is no way it isn't. There is IMO no denying the sudden recent spike in CO2 PPM levels are a direct result of this....how much warming this is causing I don't know but I know there is no way it isn't having a impact.
 

Stormdoc

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
345
Reaction score
420
Location
Raleigh
I agree, and your observation is astute. I would expect leftists to start the selling pressure in areas they believe will be inundated by sea water. My comment was rhetorical.
So what has a bigger influence, the left’s agenda or big oil? Who has more money? Any idea how much money they have invested in their lobby over the years? Al Gore isn’t poor but good grief there is no comparison between the two of you follow the money trail. Not to mention again why are you so arrogant to dismiss climate scientists who study this? Who would you trust to go to Mars, NASA scientists or some guy on Fox News?
 

ForsythSnow

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
8,043
Reaction score
11,941
Location
North Forsyth County, Georgia
So what has a bigger influence, the left’s agenda or big oil? Who has more money? Any idea how much money they have invested in their lobby over the years? Al Gore isn’t poor but good grief there is no comparison between the two of you follow the money trail. Not to mention again why are you so arrogant to dismiss climate scientists who study this? Who would you trust to go to Mars, NASA scientists or some guy on Fox News?
I think there is skepticism because once more follow the money trail on the funding to the climate scientists. I haven't checked but I would look there too. If it leads to the left then perhaps there's a chance it was biased. I'm pretty sure this is where we get the "12 years left and we will die" thing. You can't deny the observable changes, but the outlooks and the "actions" like carbon taxes are nothing but a scam as all they do is make extra money for the government. As for the outlooks, fear is control.
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
879
Reaction score
670
Location
Chapel Hill
So what has a bigger influence, the left’s agenda or big oil? Who has more money? Any idea how much money they have invested in their lobby over the years? Al Gore isn’t poor but good grief there is no comparison between the two of you follow the money trail. Not to mention again why are you so arrogant to dismiss climate scientists who study this? Who would you trust to go to Mars, NASA scientists or some guy on Fox News?
Al Gore might preach about global warming, but his actions/lifestyle tells me he isn't concerned about it at all, as with many of them. Willing to listen to any non political climatologist discuss this, finding one that is non partisan is a needle in a haystack.
 

Stormdoc

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
345
Reaction score
420
Location
Raleigh
Al Gore might preach about global warming, but his actions/lifestyle tells me he isn't concerned about it at all, as with many of them. Willing to listen to any non political climatologist discuss this, finding one that is non partisan is a needle in a haystack.
Ok sure I agree and al Gore has biases like anybody. I am just replying to all of the comments people have made regarding the Leftist agenda as if there are not biases in the other direction. People need to see both sides to make informed decisions
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
671
Reaction score
998
Location
Clemmons, NC
Ok sure I agree and al Gore has biases like anybody. I am just replying to all of the comments people have made regarding the Leftist agenda as if there are not biases in the other direction. People need to see both sides to make informed decisions
I agree with this. Too much political biases from both sides and science is not supposed to be about biases, nor computer models nor consensus, "just the facts ma'am."
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Raleigh, NC
I got a feeling roof top solar is going to explode in California.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ForsythSnow

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
8,043
Reaction score
11,941
Location
North Forsyth County, Georgia
I got a feeling roof top solar is going to explode in California.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a better feeling people will leave the state or that part of the county. Very few people have the money to pay for enough panels to power their houses. It's cheaper to leave and move to a more convenient and cheaper location especially in the long run than to put solar panels on a house that most people can barely afford to live in.

The other option is they get state funding to repair their infrastructure with better options, but it's so expensive and unlikely that it's nearly impossible for them to do unless they take everyone's paychecks to pay for it.
 

metwannabe

Staff member
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
10,358
Reaction score
16,779
Location
Roanoke Rapids, NC
I have a better feeling people will leave the state or that part of the county. Very few people have the money to pay for enough panels to power their houses. It's cheaper to leave and move to a more convenient and cheaper location especially in the long run than to put solar panels on a house that most people can barely afford to live in.

The other option is they get state funding to repair their infrastructure with better options, but it's so expensive and unlikely that it's nearly impossible for them to do unless they take everyone's paychecks to pay for it.
Don't give them any ideas.... very grateful I don't live in Cali
 

Fountainguy97

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
821
Reaction score
1,835
Location
Erwin, TN: 1900ft

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Raleigh, NC
I have a better feeling people will leave the state or that part of the county. Very few people have the money to pay for enough panels to power their houses. It's cheaper to leave and move to a more convenient and cheaper location especially in the long run than to put solar panels on a house that most people can barely afford to live in.

The other option is they get state funding to repair their infrastructure with better options, but it's so expensive and unlikely that it's nearly impossible for them to do unless they take everyone's paychecks to pay for it.
And the climate migration with in the country will only escalate as other areas become too expensive and not practical to live in due to flooding and storms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ForsythSnow

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
8,043
Reaction score
11,941
Location
North Forsyth County, Georgia
And the climate migration with in the country will only escalate as other areas become too expensive and not practical to live in due to flooding and storms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People still live in Florida and Louisiana after all those hurricanes and the risk of more as well in addition to the flooding. Even look at Texas. It's the cost of living on a daily routine people are most worried about. California is too expensive and to lose power constantly because a power company went bankrupt from lawsuits due to lack of maintenance in their infrastructure that ultimately sparked wildfires is just stupid. They grew too big too fast and too far to realize that if you put more power lines in an area with bad climate and don't have proper tree trimming, strong enough poles and lines, and maintenance on those, that you'll cause fires. They could've planned their utilities better and had better preventive measures in place to prevent the fires, but nope, they choose just to shut off power because they don't care or just can't fix the actual problems since they're bankrupt.

So in the end, would you rather move to a state that's burning every year and is double as expensive to live in at least, and have no power for weeks of the year, because that's what it's going to be like, or move somewhere that you don't have to pay as much for a house, living your daily life, but have maybe the risk of a hurricane and flooding? I mean we'd rather have neither, but if that was your two options, I'd rather be in the flooding and hurricane areas. At least building codes can protect from winds, and flooding is likely cheaper to clean up than having your entire house burned down. Being real, there aren't going to be significantly larger floods all the time in areas that are prone to flooding just because of the climate changes in between decades. It'll take centuries for major and more permanent changes to happen assuming that's the path we really are on. For all we know, a massive volcano could blow in 50 years and cool the globe down what we've warmed it to in that time. You can't worry about 100 years down the road unless it's instant damage like a nuke.
 
Last edited:
S

snowcool776

Guest
People still live in Florida and Louisiana after all those hurricanes and the risk of more as well in addition to the flooding. Even look at Texas. It's the cost of living on a daily routine people are most worried about. California is too expensive and to lose power constantly because a power company went bankrupt from lawsuits due to lack of maintenance in their infrastructure that ultimately sparked wildfires is just stupid. They grew too big too fast and too far to realize that if you put more power lines in an area with bad climate and don't have proper tree trimming, strong enough poles and lines, and maintenance on those, that you'll cause fires. They could've planned their utilities better and had better preventive measures in place to prevent the fires, but nope, they choose just to shut off power because they don't care or just can't fix the actual problems since they're bankrupt.

So in the end, would you rather move to a state that's burning every year and is double as expensive to live in at least, and have no power for weeks of the year, because that's what it's going to be like, or move somewhere that you don't have to pay as much for a house, living your daily life, but have maybe the risk of a hurricane and flooding? I mean we'd rather have neither, but if that was your two options, I'd rather be in the flooding and hurricane areas. At least building codes can protect from winds, and flooding is likely cheaper to clean up than having your entire house burned down. Being real, there aren't going to be significantly larger floods all the time in areas that are prone to flooding just because of the climate changes in between decades. It'll take centuries for major and more permanent changes to happen assuming that's the path we really are on. For all we know, a massive volcano could blow in 50 years and cool the globe down what we've warmed it to in that time. You can't worry about 100 years down the road unless it's instant damage like a nuke.
And the power goes out in NC almost every november up until July 26 2017, when Duke fixed the lifelong problem. So far we only had one outage, and that was back in June.
 

snowlover91

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
4,104
Location
Wilson, NC
People still live in Florida and Louisiana after all those hurricanes and the risk of more as well in addition to the flooding. Even look at Texas. It's the cost of living on a daily routine people are most worried about. California is too expensive and to lose power constantly because a power company went bankrupt from lawsuits due to lack of maintenance in their infrastructure that ultimately sparked wildfires is just stupid. They grew too big too fast and too far to realize that if you put more power lines in an area with bad climate and don't have proper tree trimming, strong enough poles and lines, and maintenance on those, that you'll cause fires. They could've planned their utilities better and had better preventive measures in place to prevent the fires, but nope, they choose just to shut off power because they don't care or just can't fix the actual problems since they're bankrupt.

So in the end, would you rather move to a state that's burning every year and is double as expensive to live in at least, and have no power for weeks of the year, because that's what it's going to be like, or move somewhere that you don't have to pay as much for a house, living your daily life, but have maybe the risk of a hurricane and flooding? I mean we'd rather have neither, but if that was your two options, I'd rather be in the flooding and hurricane areas. At least building codes can protect from winds, and flooding is likely cheaper to clean up than having your entire house burned down. Being real, there aren't going to be significantly larger floods all the time in areas that are prone to flooding just because of the climate changes in between decades. It'll take centuries for major and more permanent changes to happen assuming that's the path we really are on. For all we know, a massive volcano could blow in 50 years and cool the globe down what we've warmed it to in that time. You can't worry about 100 years down the road unless it's instant damage like a nuke.
The irony about the situation in California is that the government has for years been pushing their green energy plans. As a result it has forced electric companies to utilize funds to meet these various requirements while taking away from the needed maintenance to prevent these fires from lack of maintenance. No one wants to take the blame but it’s the green energy policies that have forced electric companies in CA to use money for “green energy” which has led to a reduction in maintenance spending... which has led to fires. But let’s blame climate change because the adults who made these decisions would rather shift the blame than take responsibility for their policies as the root cause of this.
 

snowlover91

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
4,104
Location
Wilson, NC
Let me ask those pushing green energy... how efficient is this? To cut down 600 acres of trees, destroying natural habitat and threatening endangered animals, all to build 7 inefficient wind turbine’s that won’t even generate reliable or consistent power?

What follows is an example of how German decisionmakers go about protecting the environment: chop down hundreds of acres of forests and pour thousands of tons on concrete reinforced with hundreds of tons of steel on huge beds of gravel, all hauled in by hundreds of truck loads. Then install skyscraper tall industrial bird-killing monstrosities.
Result: an idyllic forest gets turned into an industrial complex that can be seen and felt from miles away – in order to protect the climate.
It would be a gruesome task to calculate the environmental and CO2 budget for the following described wind park project in the Münsterwald forest near the western Germany city of Aachen.
When finished it will consist of seven 200-meter tall turbines in what once was a natural, forested area and undisturbed biotope.
To get to the site, a “gigantic” swatch of forest had to be cut through the heart of the forest. According to the ZDF public television report (see below), “alone here 1000 trees had to be cut down.

And according top Rainer Hülsheger of the state association for natural landscape protection: “At least 12,000 square meters of forest needed to be cleared in order to build one wind turbine alone.”
Angry environmentalists say that the forest simply was never even suitable for a wind park to begin with. Yet, the ZDF reports how the forest belongs to the city, and so the revenue-generating project got the green light.
Threat to endangered species
The ZDF report shows the sheer insanity that it takes to install wind turbines in the middle of forests, and how they endanger rare bird species such as the black storch and red kite.
Entire biotope severely damaged
For the wind project in Euskirchen, according to the ZDF (2:35), “The planned 24 wind turbines in the co called Kammerwald cut through an entire biotope system from Rheinland towards Belgium.”
Forest is the best place, says Aachen city offical
Why are the turbines being installed in the forests? According to Aachen city official Elmar Wiezorek, placing the turbines in fields posed an even greater environmental hazard: “The forest had the least problems.”
But Herbert Klinkenberg of a citizens initiative protecting the wind projects calls it all “a catastrophe”. ZDF sums it up: “Climate protection at the expense of nature.” Link
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
879
Reaction score
670
Location
Chapel Hill
My Grandfather was born in 1902. He'd tell me stories about how his Grandfather would say how hot it used to be when he was a young adult. I'm assuming mid-1800's there. My Grandfather told me about memorable cold spells in his days. Now, however, we have become so warm that just a few days of colder than normal weather and its a media frenzy. I guess if I live long enough I can tell my grandkids of how warm my era was, though the 80's for the most part seemed cold, but its been warm ever since then it seems.

Just wish we could get back into a cold pattern like we had in the 80's for an extended period of time.
 

Shawn

Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Tech
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
6,526
Reaction score
6,607
Location
KCAE
Not sure if mentioned, but I saw where Tesla is moving forward / getting better with their solar panels for homes. They're getting the costs down and hopefully soon enough it will be as cheap, if not cheaper than a whole new roof (or on a new house).

I think everyone here can agree, that using the natural energy from the sun to save money, regardless of what side of Climate Change you are on, is a great thing.
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
879
Reaction score
670
Location
Chapel Hill
Not sure if mentioned, but I saw where Tesla is moving forward / getting better with their solar panels for homes. They're getting the costs down and hopefully soon enough it will be as cheap, if not cheaper than a whole new roof (or on a new house).

I think everyone here can agree, that using the natural energy from the sun to save money, regardless of what side of Climate Change you are on, is a great thing.
Will use whatever is most cost effective and works as I need it to. Gas, solar, wind, whatever.
 

snowlover91

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
4,104
Location
Wilson, NC
Not sure if mentioned, but I saw where Tesla is moving forward / getting better with their solar panels for homes. They're getting the costs down and hopefully soon enough it will be as cheap, if not cheaper than a whole new roof (or on a new house).

I think everyone here can agree, that using the natural energy from the sun to save money, regardless of what side of Climate Change you are on, is a great thing.
Not until they fix their issue with the panels shorting out and causing fires. Right now that’s been a big issue for consumers and businesses buying Tesla solar panels.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-29/more-tesla-solar-panel-cases-emerge-in-wake-of-walmart-suit
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
879
Reaction score
670
Location
Chapel Hill
Look, I'm one of those guys who has a citizens band radio in case my cell doesn't work. Its great to have options like gas/battery for vehicles. Solar, nuclear, coal for energy. A vehicle that can operate on both charge and petroleum is good. During the recent CA outages folks couldn't charge their cars. In some instances here in NC during 'canes people couldn't purchase gas. Options are great. Don't allow the government to dictate one or the other.
 

ForsythSnow

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
8,043
Reaction score
11,941
Location
North Forsyth County, Georgia
Just getting started. First we got Cali getting blow torched and now more flooding and a crazy cold snap in the US.

https://www.livescience.com/venice-flooding-2019.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be fair, their city is sinking, unlike most of the rest of the world. It says it right there in the article. Venice wasn't a very good place to build a city anyway, but nobody knew that hundreds of years ago. California gets torched often with fires anyway from their poor infrastructure with the power line-caused fires.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Raleigh, NC
To be fair, their city is sinking, unlike most of the rest of the world. It says it right there in the article. Venice wasn't a very good place to build a city anyway, but nobody knew that hundreds of years ago. California gets torched often with fires anyway from their poor infrastructure with the power line-caused fires.
Yeah and AGW is finding these weaknesses and it’s not pretty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
671
Reaction score
998
Location
Clemmons, NC
Yeah and AGW is finding these weaknesses and it’s not pretty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since you brought it up much earlier about how Greenland was melting, go check the current ice mass gain/loss and you will be able to calm down a little and realize maybe we aren't all dying by flood in 11 years
 

Cad Wedge NC

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
1,790
Location
Maiden NC
Since you brought it up much earlier about how Greenland was melting, go check the current ice mass gain/loss and you will be able to calm down a little and realize maybe we aren't all dying by flood in 11 years
According to the statement released by NSIDC, the melt this year was attributed to the number of "cloud-free" days and not from temperature, as it was in 2012.
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Raleigh, NC
Since you brought it up much earlier about how Greenland was melting, go check the current ice mass gain/loss and you will be able to calm down a little and realize maybe we aren't all dying by flood in 11 years
Melt season is over .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,238
Location
Raleigh, NC
According to the statement released by NSIDC, the melt this year was attributed to the number of "cloud-free" days and not from temperature, as it was in 2012.
Hmmmm could it be from all the added ridging from it being warmer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cad Wedge NC

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2016
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
1,790
Location
Maiden NC
Hmmmm could it be from all the added ridging from it being warmer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was the -NAO ridging this summer which suppressed cloud cover and precipitation over Greenland thus causing a negative mass balance. Again, temps were not the driver.
 
Top