more subsidence in the news: NYC is sinking under the weight of its buildings: geologists https://nypost.com/2023/05/17/nyc-is-sinking-under-the-weight-of-its-buildings-geologists/ discussing this study: The Weight of New York City: Possible Contributions to Subsidence From Anthropogenic Sources https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF003465
Maybe just a change of thread title to "Those Durned Climate Protestors"? Not much to debate and discuss about the change anymore. 1980's: these scientists are nuts. 1990's: okay, lots of data, but the climate is not getting warmer. Come on! This planet is too huge and your data are too noisy. 2000's: well, but you climate scientists don't all agree, and ... look at "the pause"! 2010's: okay, definitely getting a bit warmer, but could be natural causes and scientists just do this to make grant money anyway. 2020's: okay, humans maybe having an effect, but it would be too expensive to change things. Plus, look at these awful protestors! Geez!
More like 1970s : new ice age coming 1980s: acid rain. All crops will die. 1990s: hole in the ozone. Everyone will get cancer. 2000s: global warming. al gore: ' nyc and miami will be underwater by 2015' Global warming didnt affect your grandparent's lives, parent's lives, or your life. Every day that goes by without anyone being affected weakens the threat of impending doom.
Acid rain was largely solved by regulations and technology that reduced sulfur emissions. The hole in the Ozone hasn’t gone away and still reappears but it’s seriousness has been ameliorated by regulation and new technology that reduced the use of CFC’s this is why Freon isn’t largely used in new refrigerators or AC. People aren’t talking about them now because they weren’t really that serious to begin with but because action on the international scale was actually done to address them. It’s the same reason why we don’t talk about lead poisoning much anymore.
Recycling ‘end-of-life’ solar panels, wind turbines, is about to be climate tech’s big waste business https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/13/rec...panel-wind-turbine-is-big-waste-business.html highlights: KEY POINTS As the Biden administration pushes for more wind power and solar energy, renewable energy industries will soon generate tons of waste. A wind turbine is recyclable, from the steel tower to the composite blades, typically 170 feet long, but most ends up being thrown away, a waste total that will reach a cumulative mass of 2.2 million metric tons by 2050. Currently, about 90% of end-of-life or defective solar panels also end up in landfills, largely because it costs far less to dump them than to recycle them. “We have done a phenomenal job making solar efficient and cost-effective, but really have not done anything yet on making it circular and dealing with the end-of-life,” says Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma. more at the link
Yes end of life is an issue with anything human made. That we have much more renewable energy technology just means how those are disposed of is an issue just the same as fossil fuel based technology needs to be disposed of. Again though new technology and regulations are addressing the issue.
related https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/our-children-will-never-see-snow.php POSTED ON MAY 21, 2023 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE “OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER SEE SNOW” The scientific method works as follows: 1) You come up with a hypothesis. 2) You look for the implications of the hypothesis. What will be the case if the hypothesis is true, but will not be the case if the hypothesis is wrong? 3) You carry out observations or run experiments to find out whether the facts implied by the hypothesis do or do not obtain. 4) If you find that a fact implied by the hypothesis is indeed the case, it provides support for the hypothesis. If you find a number of such facts to be true, as implied by the hypothesis, then you may have strong support. 5) But it is not conclusive: if a fact or condition implied by the hypothesis is shown by observation or experiment not to be the case, then the hypothesis is refuted, and you go back to the drawing board. Global warming hysteria is politics or religion, not science. This conclusion follows from the fact that the global warming models have generated many predictions that turned out to be wrong. A single wrong prediction is enough to disprove a model. Numerous, consistently repeated failures mean that the model is a joke. The global warming models predict that rising temperatures will cause a precipitous decline in snowfall. Thus, alarmists like Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia, the main center of global warming research and propaganda, predicted 23 years ago that: …within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. This prediction, like so many others generated by defective models, has failed to come true. In fact, there has been no decline in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the last 50 years: Speaking for myself, I will add that my four children have come of age during this time when alarmists assured us that snow was about to stop falling, and they have not lacked for winter fun. This year, we had a long, cold, snowy winter and a late spring. We had an unseasonably late snow storm on April 1 that dumped massive amounts of heavy, wet snow on the Upper Midwest, bringing down many trees, including one that narrowly missed my house. . . . If the global warming alarmists actually cared about science, they would admit that their models have proved to be wrong, apologize, and shut up for a while. But the imperative of left-wing politics allows no respite from their misguided labors.
It would be nice if an article citing the scientific method in criticizing research actually used it in its own logic. A) He's using one quote by one scientist to dismiss all climate science - not very scientific B) Snowfall coverage has in fact decreased - using actual facts is part of being scientific: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicat...s ranged from 3.0,1,870 square miles per year. C) Climate models from 50 years ago are still proving to be accurate in their predictions. These blogs you are posting are bad articles. Powerline isn't reputable based on what you have posted here before.
I mean, look, there's value in skepticism - a lot of things people have said have been untrue or been exaggerated. But the people saying these things are not scientists but policy makers. And I think a lot of people get policy making and science confused. Snowfall isn't going to linearly decrease because weather is far more complex on a short time scale like 20 years. But snowfall coverage is going to decrease and has decreased. But so what? That's not even one of the most important aspects of any of the models anyway. There's value to having a debate around policy and what is the right policy that slows climate change without causing gross economic impact. But right now we're not even close to being in an area where climate advocacy is negatively impacting the economy. In fact, we have governors and lawmakers acting against market forces to help the oil industry - just look at the way Texas has taxed EV vehicles at a far higher rate per mile than gasoline cars - why not make them the same??? Why are people being penalized for driving EV's in Texas? Science is so much more certain than it was 30 years ago, but even what was predicted 30 years ago has been scary accurate. It's happening, it's going to come true. The question is now all about what do we do about it.
