Disappearing glaciers NYT article - Page 3 - Spey Pages
 101Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #31 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-20-2019, 11:56 AM
PiscatorNonSolumPiscatur
 
Green Butt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 767
It is difficult to know what the affects man has had over the past 100+ years. How did the removal of large swaths of tropical rain forest affect global climate? How did changing thousands of square miles of prairie into cultivated farm land affect global climate? Etc, Etc. Then we have the CO2 production. How is it possible to effectively change the scene portrayed in the attached graph? Will a carbon tax really change this graph?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CO2.jpg
Views:	30
Size:	382.9 KB
ID:	341998  
Green Butt is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-20-2019, 08:18 PM
loco alto!
 
SSPey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,918
Solutions prioritized across sectors based on impact, feasibility and cost/benefit

https://www.drawdown.org
troutless and Jason like this.

CF Burkheimer fly rods advisory staff
Nextcast lines pro staff
SSPey is offline  
post #33 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-20-2019, 09:55 PM
JD
 
JDJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rogue River State of Jefferson
Posts: 3,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Butt View Post
It is difficult to know what the affects man has had over the past 100+ years. How did the removal of large swaths of tropical rain forest affect global climate? How did changing thousands of square miles of prairie into cultivated farm land affect global climate? Etc, Etc. Then we have the CO2 production. How is it possible to effectively change the scene portrayed in the attached graph? Will a carbon tax really change this graph?

If I'm reading that graph right, it looks like some of those other parts of the world that I mentioned are indeed f***ing up the world at a far greater rate than we are.

I've driven across the US zig zaggng from west to east, from south to north & back again, several times. When you see miles & miles of corn. wheat, & soybeans, and hundreds of miles of major rivers dammed & locks completely changing them & the surrounding landscape from what it used to be, it boggles the mind. Sadly, those dams & the acres of fields are there to stay, forever. There is just no way to change that without destroying all the economies & lives dependent on maintaining the status quo. Even if we could, how much impact would it have against the rest of the world that keeps on doing what they are doing?

I fish because the voices inside my head tell me to.
JDJones is offline  
post #34 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-20-2019, 11:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Snake, Clearwater and tribs
Posts: 499
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDJones View Post
If I'm reading that graph right, it looks like some of those other parts of the world that I mentioned are indeed f***ing up the world at a far greater rate than we are.

I've driven across the US zig zaggng from west to east, from south to north & back again, several times. When you see miles & miles of corn. wheat, & soybeans, and hundreds of miles of major rivers dammed & locks completely changing them & the surrounding landscape from what it used to be, it boggles the mind. Sadly, those dams & the acres of fields are there to stay, forever. There is just no way to change that without destroying all the economies & lives dependent on maintaining the status quo. Even if we could, how much impact would it have against the rest of the world that keeps on doing what they are doing?
What you see in the graph is the outsourcing of our emissions to China and other countries from the US because much of our manufacturing is moving overseas. What is not shown is that products produced by those emissions overseas are being moved from those countries back to the US and Europe, so those emissions are to produce our products. There is a treaty to begin regulating emissions of greenhouse gasses, signed by all countries, but the US pulled out with the change in administration. Such efforts have been hugely successful in the past, just look at the clean air and clean water acts. Green butt, we do have knowledge of what happened with the things you mentioned. We can go back even further with tree ring / ice core / other records, especially the stable isotope record. We can see deforestation of the US during population expansion, and we can see current deforestation in the tropics.

As an aside, we have seen this type of debate before. There was scientific consensus that smoking caused cancer but those who benefited from tobacco put out propaganda saying there was no evidence and this was supported by politicians whose constituents had the most to lose economically from decreased tobacco sales. Who are you going to believe if you are a smoker or earn your living in the tobacco industry? Scientists who say what you are doing has negative consequences, or your politicians / industry who say what you are doing is fine? Rant over!
SLSS, Jason, kalamaman and 1 others like this.
coug is offline  
post #35 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 01:11 AM
PiscatorNonSolumPiscatur
 
Green Butt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 767
Firstly, I am not here as a total climate denier but do question the motives and agendas of those involved in the process of CO2 reduction. It is all reminiscent to me of watching the various bureaucracies try to solve the fisheries issues. Lots of dollars spent and lots of studies done but in the end nothing has changed, at least not much.
I would welcome some criticism of the following presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Bkar4jn3JWw
Green Butt is online now  
post #36 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 09:47 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Butt View Post
Firstly, I am not here as a total climate denier but do question the motives and agendas of those involved in the process of CO2 reduction. It is all reminiscent to me of watching the various bureaucracies try to solve the fisheries issues. Lots of dollars spent and lots of studies done but in the end nothing has changed, at least not much.
I would welcome some criticism of the following presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Bkar4jn3JWw
I agree with you on being skeptical of the motives and agendas of anyone who has an interest one way or another. By your own logic would you not question the motives of those who are so vehemently trying to deny climate change, or challenging any efforts to do anything to address it? I certainly hesitate to jump on board with any groups who stand to gain a lot, and have an open mind to the fact that our understanding of the way the world works will continue to evolve as we learn more. Of all the various parties I’m more inclined to trust the findings and opinions of the scientific community than politicians, industry lobbyists, talk radio hosts, conspiracy theory peddlers, etc etc.

I definitely question the motives of the Dr who produced the video. I do not disagree with some of his points, but some of sweeping accusations do not hold water imo. The general thrust of his opposition to the Paris Accords could be summarized to: lobbyists are putting pressure on the heads of state to get on board, and these lobbyists (“influencers” in his words) stand to gain a lot of money in doing so. Sounds like another day in Washington DC does it not? Unfortunately, kind of the way of the world: there WILL be those who find many ways to benefit economically regardless of of which legislation is eventually passed, or not passed. I would hazard a guess that the same issues could be found on the sidelines plenty of major legislation that has come to pass, including some very important legislation. My main skeptical take on the YouTube video is that it’s a distraction argument, and a good one, but not the most important discussion/debate we could and should be having.
Cheers,
JB
SLSS and kalamaman like this.
Jason is offline  
post #37 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 11:02 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDJones View Post
If I'm reading that graph right, it looks like some of those other parts of the world that I mentioned are indeed f***ing up the world at a far greater rate than we are.
I think USA has been able about to stop producing CO2 increased rate and EU decrease slightly. When CO2 production is compared to population USA is biggest producer almost double the EU.

Higher taxex do work when it engourages to save energy and then taxes can be used to improve technology. It is a shame President Trump was able to quit following "the deal"

Esa
SLSS and coug like this.
bender is offline  
post #38 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 11:40 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Connecticut River
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
I agree with you on being skeptical of the motives and agendas of anyone who has an interest one way or another. By your own logic would you not question the motives of those who are so vehemently trying to deny climate change, or challenging any efforts to do anything to address it? I certainly hesitate to jump on board with any groups who stand to gain a lot, and have an open mind to the fact that our understanding of the way the world works will continue to evolve as we learn more. Of all the various parties I’m more inclined to trust the findings and opinions of the scientific community than politicians, industry lobbyists, talk radio hosts, conspiracy theory peddlers, etc etc.

I definitely question the motives of the Dr who produced the video. I do not disagree with some of his points, but some of sweeping accusations do not hold water imo. The general thrust of his opposition to the Paris Accords could be summarized to: lobbyists are putting pressure on the heads of state to get on board, and these lobbyists (“influencers” in his words) stand to gain a lot of money in doing so. Sounds like another day in Washington DC does it not? Unfortunately, kind of the way of the world: there WILL be those who find many ways to benefit economically regardless of of which legislation is eventually passed, or not passed. I would hazard a guess that the same issues could be found on the sidelines plenty of major legislation that has come to pass, including some very important legislation. My main skeptical take on the YouTube video is that it’s a distraction argument, and a good one, but not the most important discussion/debate we could and should be having.
Cheers,
JB
Could governments have an interest from the potential revenue stream? And as I understand things, scientists get a large part of their funding from government (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, who to trust? I agree with the theory of better being safe than sorry. So why not take action? However what are the lost opportunities from acting? Has this been calculated? Billions of additional dollars to government, that is one big lost opportunity cost. What technological developments will not occur if all that capital is diverted to government? I would like to see a panel of an equal number of climate scientists from both sides debate the issue head on so we can all become more educated.
Rickbjr is offline  
post #39 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 01:14 PM
registered text offender
 
matuka mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Orewashingontanaho
Posts: 1,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickbjr View Post
what is the cause? Is it nature or is it man? Maybe a combination? If it is a combination is man the majority (> 50%) of the problem?
I think one thing is obvious. humans are doing more to screw up this planet than they are to help it. the root cause ?

GREED AND IGNORANCE...…..

and those of us trying to help are only slowing the process.
sinktip, SLSS and Jason like this.

insta-release not Insta-gram !!

Dog is my co-pilot !
matuka mike is offline  
post #40 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 03:29 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OR
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by matuka mike View Post

and those of us trying to help are only slowing the process.
We need to educate and recruit more young people.
SLSS is online now  
post #41 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 03:54 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Cowlitz and other southwest washington rivers
Posts: 8
Shiva seems like a smart guy, and I believe the trading of carbon credits is likely to be another greed driven system. I take issue with his take on the average temperature, where he cites the dishonesty of Dr. Hansen, when climatologist don't compare single years, single weather events, but accumulated data over long periods, that show trends. You can't find real climate scientists who will tell you the trend in global temperature is cooler. This guy has multiple degrees, and I'm sure he knew what he was doing there. When I catch a person in a lie, I find it hard to take the rest of what he says seriously.
Jason and kalamaman like this.
nwbobber is offline  
post #42 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 04:09 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alaska, Skeena, Bulkley
Posts: 326
Well said :
Attached Images
 
salmo_g, SLSS, SpeySpaz and 1 others like this.
bolen is offline  
post #43 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 06:58 PM
PiscatorNonSolumPiscatur
 
Green Butt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 767
At one time we used to talk about the toxic chemicals-- agricultural and industrial and pharmaceutical that somehow find their way to our soil, our waters, our air, and our bodies. And let's not forget plastics. What happened to outrage over these pollutants? Now CO2 seems to be the most villainous. How did that happen? Perhaps there is no big money in these now "minor" pollutants. We have members of Congress telling us we have 12 years before the end of the world if we do not act now. Makes it hard to take some people serious and makes one question all sources of information.
SpeySpaz likes this.
Green Butt is online now  
post #44 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-21-2019, 10:57 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Cowlitz and other southwest washington rivers
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Butt View Post
At one time we used to talk about the toxic chemicals-- agricultural and industrial and pharmaceutical that somehow find their way to our soil, our waters, our air, and our bodies. And let's not forget plastics. What happened to outrage over these pollutants? Now CO2 seems to be the most villainous. How did that happen? Perhaps there is no big money in these now "minor" pollutants. We have members of Congress telling us we have 12 years before the end of the world if we do not act now. Makes it hard to take some people serious and makes one question all sources of information.
If I need information, I never ask anyone focused on politics. In 12 years we will figure out how to live in the world we have. We'll know more about the science then too, but will anyone listen?
nwbobber is offline  
post #45 of 86 (permalink) Old 04-22-2019, 02:08 AM
All Tangled Up
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NorCal
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Butt View Post
Firstly, I am not here as a total climate denier but do question the motives and agendas of those involved in the process of CO2 reduction. It is all reminiscent to me of watching the various bureaucracies try to solve the fisheries issues. Lots of dollars spent and lots of studies done but in the end nothing has changed, at least not much.
I would welcome some criticism of the following presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Bkar4jn3JWw
Well, ok, here is some criticism of that video, and I will follow it with something more constructive.

You've posted two videos. Doubtless I'm missing details, but, my impression is one of them is basically claiming observed warming trends are due to non-human exotic solar effects, the other is saying, in the criticism of Hansen, there is no warming trend. Well these are mutually contradictory positions. They could both be wrong, but they certainly can't both be right. If it were me, I'd be thinking, at least one of these sources isn't credible. And I would be looking for some more credible source that (a) wasn't grinding a political axe at the same time and (b) wasn't on YouTube. For example -- David Archer at U. Chicago has a wealth of good materials designed for people who are not science majors (for science majors there are more in-depth introductory treatments). Lots of others by working scientists, Isaac Held's blog, RealClimate, to name a couple. I challenge you to spend some time with such materials, and then come back and look at these same videos again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Butt View Post
At one time we used to talk about the toxic chemicals-- agricultural and industrial and pharmaceutical that somehow find their way to our soil, our waters, our air, and our bodies. And let's not forget plastics. What happened to outrage over these pollutants? Now CO2 seems to be the most villainous. How did that happen? Perhaps there is no big money in these now "minor" pollutants. We have members of Congress telling us we have 12 years before the end of the world if we do not act now. Makes it hard to take some people serious and makes one question all sources of information.
What's your point exactly? I hardly think concern over various other toxicity issues has gone away -- witness the recent kerfluffle over chlorpyrifos. But yes, CO2 is different for a bunch of reasons. For one CO2 emission is integrated into the world economy in a way few other things are. More critically, I can't really think of anything else that has the unique combination of persistence and damage potential. This is something the mass media generally has done a truly awful job of communicating, though, in all fairness, it's a more subtle thing than can't be discussed in a few soundbites. In a nutshell here is why CO2 emissions are such a concern:

1. Once a slug of CO2 is put into the atmosphere, a certain amount of the bump in CO2 concentrations, as well as the associated impacts, are there for what is basically forever on human timescales. This is not like, to give one example, the ozone hole crisis of a generation ago, where once emissions ceased, the damage would be expected to repair on a tolerable timeframe. Because of this, for any given level of warming, there is a set TOTAL emissions budget that can be calculated (or at least estimated). Total means the sum of all emissions over all past time. Blow past that, you blow past the target temperature rise. Where these 10-20 year number come from is taking as the temperature target some rough consensus from scientists about the boundary between unpleasant and catastrophic, getting a CO2 budget from that target, subtracting off what has already been emitted, looking at current emissions rates, and then making a guess at the rate of emissions reduction that might be both technologically and economically/politically feasible. There is a lot of variance in the numbers, but pretty much any realistic estimate comes to the conclusion that avoiding very severe impacts requires steep emissions drops very soon, decade or two timescale, probably sooner than is politically feasible, and only borderline technologically feasible.


2. Unlimited CO2 emissions comes with a risk of damage that at the high end is hard to find a parallel to. This is also something the media does an awful job in communicating. For one, the scientific community hems and haws, as the high-end scenarios are by definition improbable and uncertain, and scientists generally are averse to be seen as fearmongering. For two, the worst case type scenarios are so far removed from people's personal experience that they aren't considered believable/credible. You're using 'end of the world' as hyperbole, but I can give you some things to read that, if you are really as open minded as you say, will have you reconsider if that is such a joke.
coug and Jason like this.
troutless is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FlyFishUSA's Article Writing Contest flyfishusa General 2 05-09-2015 09:24 PM
A great newspaper article about Spey Skinnytrucker General 9 10-09-2013 08:45 PM
Wild Fish Article bpm1 General 7 10-27-2012 06:09 PM
Speyco Reels Article Flyfish4trout General 2 09-05-2011 10:01 AM
Not a book, but an article, review Puffin Book Reviews 3 07-13-2010 08:01 PM

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome