Climate Change Solution that Everyone Will Hate

[RealDave]

Meh, I think it's a scam, just like all the past "end of the world" scenarios. When the people who shout the sky is falling start following their own advice, then maybe I'll believe it. They seem to be wrong a lot and make a lot of assumptions though. They can't even predict regular weather patterns with complete accuracy.

While these rich politicians (and internet weirdos) go on lecturing the rest of us about "climate change" yet they are still driving automobiles, still living on the coasts, taking jets around the world, etc., then I have to say that it's a bunch of crap. Lol!

How about concentrating on cleaning up our oceans, fining people more for littering, stop deforestation, stop cutting down trees and building new houses, malls, plazas, etc.? That makes a lot more sense to me.

Foolish foolish person

 

[22lcidw]

The performance of EVs will encourage their use as the technology matures.

Gasoline rationing is simply not necessary to encourage the use of EVs.

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

It has gotten to the point that there are many people who don't believe other people who lie to them. We are not paying ten per cent of our checks and savings to the government like many many decades ago. You guys don't stop. You have the old Soviet Union five year plans that are many times past that. The War on Poverty alone is 55 years on now. And we still have poverty and according to commercials, children going to be hungry. Increases in taxes for that every year is more then inflation. Social Security and medicare has been funded by workers and is starting to go into deficit again. Back in the 1980's when the taxes were raised massively and the age went up....the government said it won't go even or into deficit until the mid 2070's. Taxes most likely and the age will have to up again. And sooner rather then later. Just two social programs that are eating more and more of the budget.

 

[RealDave]

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

It has gotten to the point that there are many people who don't believe other people who lie to them. We are not paying ten per cent of our checks and savings to the government like many many decades ago. You guys don't stop. You have the old Soviet Union five year plans that are many times past that. The War on Poverty alone is 55 years on now. And we still have poverty and according to commercials, children going to be hungry. Increases in taxes for that every year is more then inflation. Social Security and medicare has been funded by workers and is starting to go into deficit again. Back in the 1980's when the taxes were raised massively and the age went up....the government said it won't go even or into deficit until the mid 2070's. Taxes most likely and the age will have to up again. And sooner rather then later. Just two social programs that are eating more and more of the budget.

We still have poverty does not mean there have not been improvements and certainly not to say no one has been helped by these programs.

Medicare & SS always needed adjusted.

 

[22lcidw]

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

1) there was discussions on how to blend the older data like from ice cores & tree rings with today's actual measurements. Data from various sources & times are often manipulated to blend everything together. Today's temperature readings are adjusted from urban areas or perhaps other situations just like unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
It does not mean the data is being adjusted to fir an agenda.

2) Some morons assigned their own meaning when the word "trick" was used. You fucking idiots decided it was them trying to trick you but the use of trick was quite obvious. For example, "the trick to growing better tomatoes is to plant them next to the house". A trick is a clever way of doing something.

3) They did not want to give out their data to people who would purposefully misrepresent what it said. Like the denier crowd does with NASA data & graph. Just look at posts here from deniers like SSDD. They take data & assign their own analysis which is incorrect.

THAT is how it was debunked. The idea Anyone still thinks otherwise is just a testament to the ignorance of the denier ilk.

It has gotten to the point that there are many people who don't believe other people who lie to them. We are not paying ten per cent of our checks and savings to the government like many many decades ago. You guys don't stop. You have the old Soviet Union five year plans that are many times past that. The War on Poverty alone is 55 years on now. And we still have poverty and according to commercials, children going to be hungry. Increases in taxes for that every year is more then inflation. Social Security and medicare has been funded by workers and is starting to go into deficit again. Back in the 1980's when the taxes were raised massively and the age went up....the government said it won't go even or into deficit until the mid 2070's. Taxes most likely and the age will have to up again. And sooner rather then later. Just two social programs that are eating more and more of the budget.

We still have poverty does not mean there have not been improvements and certainly not to say no one has been helped by these programs.

Medicare & SS always needed adjusted.

But if we eve have an economic problem do to anything that nature or humanity does to itself, there is going to be hell to pay for reduced checks and medical care.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, I'm just not buying the climate change boogey man. If that upsets some people, too bad. From everything I've seen, our leaders and the people who are touting it do not seem to be taking it so seriously themselves.

 

[ReinyDays]

Maybe, Could be, yep there could be nothing to it.
What if the effects are major? Then what?

"What if" is your best rebuttal? ... odds of 0.0000005% ... this is climatology, what "major effect" in the 100 year average could occur without violating the laws of nature? ...

Models that assume trends remain as they are. If the industrial nations can not reduce their emissions sufficiently to end the climb of CO2 concentrations, then as other nations develop it gets worse & worse.

You have nothing to back your clam that weather patterns would not change. Are you assuming that the temperature rise is uniform?

Why won;t sea levels rise with the ice melt?

Weather patterns are driven by the large scale convective circulation in our atmosphere ... these large scale patterns aren't changing, thus the smaller scale patterns aren't changing ... in the United States and Europe, weather moves from west to east ... and that is the pattern we see today ... that is the pattern we'll see in 100 years ... this is a basic fact in meteorology, nothing in climatology changes this ... any textbook will validate this claim ...

It appears temperature increase is not uniform ... Arctic Amplification is the short term tread of the Arctic region warming twice as fast as the tropics ... if this is indeed a long term tread, then the convective circulation will slow down, less energy needs to be moved from the equator to the pole ... by definition, less energy flow means less average power in the atmosphere ... the probabilities of concentrating power becomes less, and so too the probabilities of powerful weather events ... if you've been reading the scientific literature then you'd know this is a growing consensus in the field ... I don't know why HuffPost or the National Enquirer aren't reporting on this ...

Ice melt has never been considered a major component to sea level rise ... a much greater part of this is thermal expansion, warmer water occupies a larger volume ... unfortunately our best data gives this rise of less than 2 feet by year 2100, half a rural interstate freeway is adequate protection ... that's based on 25 years of altimeter data, and that's too short a time to extrapolate with any reliability ...

Your post appears to be quite stupid.

You'd have to know the definition of temperature, otherwise I can see where anything said about temperature would be over your head ...

 

[daveman]

I am a Democrat because I believe in the environment and conservation. For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you and me.

 

[ChrisL]

I am a Democrat because I believe in the environment and conservation. For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you and me.

Which would be seriously hurtful for the rural poor. Gas prices in Europe are outrageous. I'm thankful that our gas prices are like a quarter of theirs. Europe sucks!

 

[ChrisL]

I am a Democrat because I believe in the environment and conservation. For instance, we must raise the price of gasoline, like they do in Europe, to increase conservation. If we don't, there will soon be a big gas shortage, and this will mean higher gasoline prices for you and me.

I'm going to assume this is a joke.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is the time factor. We can't sit around & do nothing because of stupid ass deniers.

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

The left has one tool in their bag, lying. They think the answer to every problem is just to lie. Realdunce told one of the dumbest lies I've ever encountered. The boi is an idiot.

Trumpettes survive on lies.

Tell us again how climategate was "debunked?"

 

[westwall]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Nope. With no empirical data to support the claim of AGW there is zero reason to enact regs like these.

 

[bripat9643]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Typical dumbass solution. It was dumb during the war, and it would be even dumber now.

 

[MaryL]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

No I like that. Makes great sense. Live near where you work and recycle. Explain to me, why liberal progressives push instead, impractical things like light rail and moving airports 20 miles outside the city, and even creating sanctuary cities without the consent of the local constituency. The democrats are more attuned to the needs of the wealthy and their carbon footprint. And the local peasantry, our needs our expectations get ignored.We, as in the WE, the people in the preamble in the Constitution us, the pain in the necks. All we want is our local so called "representatives" to actually represent us. Perhaps that's asking to much.

 

[flacaltenn]

What if the effects are major? Then what?

Effects are gonna depend on a RELIABLE forecast for 2100.. If one cannot be made that doesn't crash and burn just a couple decades later -- it's speculation --- not science.. ALL scientists agree on the basic power of CO2.. Without the super hyped "catastrophic" parts of GW theory, the number is about 1.1 DegC for every DOUBLING of CO2 in the atmos.. That's about what we've observed... And NOTE that formulation says that you need TWICE as CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1 DegC rise..

So we have not even DOUBLED since the beginnings of the Ind Age. We'll hit THAT in 2030 or 40. Another doubling would take TWICE AS emission.. And is not likely until CLOSE to 2100..

The numbers people are QUOTING to "play on your fears" would require a 600% increase in atmos CO2 (and methane) somewhere between here and 2100... NOT GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN...

Here's the irony of peeing your pants about a DegreeC of warming in a lifetime.. Those predictions of NYC and Miami DISSAPPEARING by 2100??? Relies on a complete meltdown of Antarctica and Greenland.. Mostly Antarctica... And the FUN PART is ---

It was only about 10 years ago, maybe less, that polar ice cap scientists VERIFIED that the part of West Antarctica that was losing coastal glacial ice the worst WAS SITTING ON A LARGE SERIES OF ACTIVE VOLCANIC RIFTS....

SO -- go SPEND a $Trill, fuck up everybody's standard of living, make AOC your climate social justice czar --

and find out a few years later that there are VOLCANIC surface eruptions NOW in Antarctica and NYC and Miami need to be evacuated in a manner of months..

Moral of the story is -- preparedness is a good thing.. Making policy off of hyperventilated and massively exaggerated scientific theories and misused stats only allows demagogues in the USA and UN to seize the economy, FRIGHTEN YOUR CHILDREN to DEATH, and have their way with it and fund totally UNRELATED socialist fantasies...

 

[RealDave]

What if the effects are major? Then what?

Effects are gonna depend on a RELIABLE forecast for 2100.. If one cannot be made that doesn't crash and burn just a couple decades later -- it's speculation --- not science.. ALL scientists agree on the basic power of CO2.. Without the super hyped "catastrophic" parts of GW theory, the number is about 1.1 DegC for every DOUBLING of CO2 in the atmos.. That's about what we've observed... And NOTE that formulation says that you need TWICE as CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1 DegC rise..

So we have not even DOUBLED since the beginnings of the Ind Age. We'll hit THAT in 2030 or 40. Another doubling would take TWICE AS emission.. And is not likely until CLOSE to 2100..

The numbers people are QUOTING to "play on your fears" would require a 600% increase in atmos CO2 (and methane) somewhere between here and 2100... NOT GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN...

Here's the irony of peeing your pants about a DegreeC of warming in a lifetime.. Those predictions of NYC and Miami DISSAPPEARING by 2100??? Relies on a complete meltdown of Antarctica and Greenland.. Mostly Antarctica... And the FUN PART is ---

It was only about 10 years ago, maybe less, that polar ice cap scientists VERIFIED that the part of West Antarctica that was losing coastal glacial ice the worst WAS SITTING ON A LARGE SERIES OF ACTIVE VOLCANIC RIFTS....

SO -- go SPEND a $Trill, fuck up everybody's standard of living, make AOC your climate social justice czar --

and find out a few years later that there are VOLCANIC surface eruptions NOW in Antarctica and NYC and Miami need to be evacuated in a manner of months..

Moral of the story is -- preparedness is a good thing.. Making policy off of hyperventilated and massively exaggerated scientific theories and misused stats only allows demagogues in the USA and UN to seize the economy, FRIGHTEN YOUR CHILDREN to DEATH, and have their way with it and fund totally UNRELATED socialist fantasies...

Here is what NOAA says: "Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures."

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate.gov

Another article said between 1.5 and 4.5/.

So where did scientists agree with your 1.1?

So why are you so fucking sure that you would do nothing? Really? Serious effects can occur at 2 degrees C warming.

You act like action would be this painful thong. That you might have to sacrifice something.

What do you think is going to cost you something that you would be this ignorant.

 

[RealDave]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Nope. With no empirical data to support the claim of AGW there is zero reason to enact regs like these.

Plenty of data. Quit ignoring it

 

[RealDave]

Could you explain how you were brainwashed into becoming a stupid ass climategate denier?

Climategate was totally debunked.

How stupid are you.

A bunch of uneducated people assigning their meaning to e-mails between climatologists.

Climategate was totally debunked.

The emails about hiding the decline, Mike's Nature Trick and discussions about preventing skeptics from publishing were debunked?

Tell me more!!!

The left has one tool in their bag, lying. They think the answer to every problem is just to lie. Realdunce told one of the dumbest lies I've ever encountered. The boi is an idiot.

Trumpettes survive on lies.

Tell us again how climategate was "debunked?"

Been there & done that. You can just continue to be the dumnbass you have always been.

 

[RealDave]

Maybe, Could be, yep there could be nothing to it.
What if the effects are major? Then what?

"What if" is your best rebuttal? ... odds of 0.0000005% ... this is climatology, what "major effect" in the 100 year average could occur without violating the laws of nature? ...

Models that assume trends remain as they are. If the industrial nations can not reduce their emissions sufficiently to end the climb of CO2 concentrations, then as other nations develop it gets worse & worse.

You have nothing to back your clam that weather patterns would not change. Are you assuming that the temperature rise is uniform?

Why won;t sea levels rise with the ice melt?

Weather patterns are driven by the large scale convective circulation in our atmosphere ... these large scale patterns aren't changing, thus the smaller scale patterns aren't changing ... in the United States and Europe, weather moves from west to east ... and that is the pattern we see today ... that is the pattern we'll see in 100 years ... this is a basic fact in meteorology, nothing in climatology changes this ... any textbook will validate this claim ...

It appears temperature increase is not uniform ... Arctic Amplification is the short term tread of the Arctic region warming twice as fast as the tropics ... if this is indeed a long term tread, then the convective circulation will slow down, less energy needs to be moved from the equator to the pole ... by definition, less energy flow means less average power in the atmosphere ... the probabilities of concentrating power becomes less, and so too the probabilities of powerful weather events ... if you've been reading the scientific literature then you'd know this is a growing consensus in the field ... I don't know why HuffPost or the National Enquirer aren't reporting on this ...

Ice melt has never been considered a major component to sea level rise ... a much greater part of this is thermal expansion, warmer water occupies a larger volume ... unfortunately our best data gives this rise of less than 2 feet by year 2100, half a rural interstate freeway is adequate protection ... that's based on 25 years of altimeter data, and that's too short a time to extrapolate with any reliability ...

Your post appears to be quite stupid.

You'd have to know the definition of temperature, otherwise I can see where anything said about temperature would be over your head ...

"As a result, the amount of sea level rise due to melting (with a small addition from groundwater transfer and other water storage shifts) from 2005–2013 was nearly twice the amount of sea level rise due to thermal expansion."

NOAA again says that you are full of shit.
Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[flacaltenn]

So where did scientists agree with your 1.1?

I told you that's the BASIC warming power of CO2 from raw Physics, Chem, and Atmos Science.. Does not INCLUDE the "postulations" of "all positive feedbacks", massive melts of frozen carbon, or "trigger temps"...

The models incorporate these other than mainstream theories to one degree or another..

STILL -- the difference between 1.5DegC and 4.5DegC by 2100 range from snooze to alarm... But you KNOW the media only really publishes shit that ASSUMES the worst case number...

ACTUALLY -- with the dates I gave for the next doubling of CO2 --- the basic "envelope physics" calculations are NOT that far off from a couple degrees... Just NOWHERE NEAR the unlikely HIGHEST numbers...

 

[RealDave]

What if the effects are major? Then what?

Effects are gonna depend on a RELIABLE forecast for 2100.. If one cannot be made that doesn't crash and burn just a couple decades later -- it's speculation --- not science.. ALL scientists agree on the basic power of CO2.. Without the super hyped "catastrophic" parts of GW theory, the number is about 1.1 DegC for every DOUBLING of CO2 in the atmos.. That's about what we've observed... And NOTE that formulation says that you need TWICE as CO2 to get the NEXT 1.1 DegC rise..

So we have not even DOUBLED since the beginnings of the Ind Age. We'll hit THAT in 2030 or 40. Another doubling would take TWICE AS emission.. And is not likely until CLOSE to 2100..

The numbers people are QUOTING to "play on your fears" would require a 600% increase in atmos CO2 (and methane) somewhere between here and 2100... NOT GONNA FUCKING HAPPEN...

Here's the irony of peeing your pants about a DegreeC of warming in a lifetime.. Those predictions of NYC and Miami DISSAPPEARING by 2100??? Relies on a complete meltdown of Antarctica and Greenland.. Mostly Antarctica... And the FUN PART is ---

It was only about 10 years ago, maybe less, that polar ice cap scientists VERIFIED that the part of West Antarctica that was losing coastal glacial ice the worst WAS SITTING ON A LARGE SERIES OF ACTIVE VOLCANIC RIFTS....

SO -- go SPEND a $Trill, fuck up everybody's standard of living, make AOC your climate social justice czar --

and find out a few years later that there are VOLCANIC surface eruptions NOW in Antarctica and NYC and Miami need to be evacuated in a manner of months..

Moral of the story is -- preparedness is a good thing.. Making policy off of hyperventilated and massively exaggerated scientific theories and misused stats only allows demagogues in the USA and UN to seize the economy, FRIGHTEN YOUR CHILDREN to DEATH, and have their way with it and fund totally UNRELATED socialist fantasies...

Effects have nothing to do with forecasts.

Effects will depend on what actions we take to curb emissions.