Green New Deal

[Uncensored2008]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

 

[RealDave]

The green new deal and Anthropogenic Global Warming explained.

10,000 years ago, Ug awoke in his cave and smiled at his mate and beautiful daughter. Ug crawled out from under the furs and skins of his bed and emerged into the bright sunlight of a pristine landscape. Ug smiled, Ug lucky man he thought. But off in the distance, the mountain had smoke coming from the top. "What this mean," wondered Ug?

Ug made his way to the cave of the unwashed and creepy shaman, Algore. "Algore," cried Ug, "mountain smoking, what this mean?" Algore rose, farted, belched and skulked out of his cave. As Algore's eyes fell on the smoking mountain, they grew wide with shock and fear, then narrowed with cunning. "Algore know all about this. Algore predict this. Volcano god angry at village for too many hunts." "Too many hunts? Hunt how feed village." cried Ug. "feed less" demanded Algore.

"Algore can appease volcano god."
"How Algore do that?" asked Ug.
"Ug give Algore daughter to be sacrificed."
"Ug not give Algore daughter, Algore pervert who lust after daughter long time, this trick."
"Ug see smoke, volcano god real, settled science."
"Ug not give Algore daughter!"
"Then Ug DIE!"

Ug stormed back to his cave, the creepy little troll would never get his daughter. Later that day, Ug went out to the center of the village and found the entire village gathered around Algore. Algore pointed a gnarled finger and Ug and shouted "Look, because Ug SELFISH, whole village die. You die, children die, animals die. All because Ug not give daughter to volcano god." Despite the fact that Ug was their greatest hunter and had kept them from starvation many times, the villagers listened to Algore. "Ug make mountain smoke, Ug kill all village," they shouted.

Ug was devastated, "No other way to make volcano god happy?" "NO," shouted Algore, "only daughter will do." So Ug agreed that Algore could take his daughter and prepare her, then when the new moon came, throw her to the volcano god. Algore spent the next month raping Ug's daughter, then dragged her up the mountain, murdered her, and threw her corpse in the volcano.

Three days later the volcano erupted, covering the village with lava and ash, killing everyone.

Climate change is a scam, a con. Oh, it isn't that there is no climate change, it's that the shamans have no special knowledge and they sure the hell can't impact it. They simply want to enrich themselves off of feat.

Standard Disclaimer: Whichever pile of crap deleted this the first time; knock it off and grow up.

pathetic

 

[RealDave]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

 

[Uncensored2008]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

 

[Flopper]

When you demand a photo ID knowing that10-12% of eligible voters do not have one, you are suppressing the vote.

There are no statistics that show significant voter fraud that a photo ID would prevent.

That & your party cheaters.

Gerrymandering is legal so legalized cheating is OK? Wow, what a piece of shit you are.

Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?

"Never mind your evidence. THIS is true because I say it is!"

When you say 10-12% of eligible voters don't have ID and won't vote because they don't have ID, you're saying that your voters are helpless, ignorant dumbasses. So I'm sure they appreciate you "helping" them like that.

Now, since I know you didn't even look at the link because you're going to believe what you believe and fuck any facts, I'll help you out.

"To determine this, the professors took advantage of different timing of the implementation of voter ID laws in different states to construct a "difference-in-differences" analysis, looking at how voters behave in states that do and do not have strict voter ID laws, before and after those laws were implemented. They used data from the progressive data service Catalist, "a U.S. company that provides data and data-related services to progressive organizations and has a long history of collaborating with academics."

The data from Catalist contained both demographic information—age, sex, race, and party affiliation—as well as information on whether or not a surveyed person was actually registered. This means that the paper’s authors could test whether or not voter ID not only stopped registered voters from voting, but discouraged unregistered voters from registering.

"Strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any subgroup defined by age, gender, race, or party affiliation," the paper's authors found.

"Most importantly," they write, strict ID laws "do not decrease the participation of ethnic minorities relative to whites. The laws' overall effects remain close to zero and non-significant whether the election is a midterm or presidential election, and whether the laws are the more restrictive type that stipulate photo IDs.""

As for your claim that voters are helpless naifs who don't have and can't get ID, I dare you to prove to me that 10-12% of legally eligible voters are walking around the streets with absolutely no ID and no way to easily acquire it.

Furthermore, by definition, something that is legal cannot be cheating. The two are mutually exclusive. The fact that you can keep shouting, "Cheating! Cheating!!" over and over does not make it fact. Wow, what a delusional piece of shit you are.

"Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?" Like I said, you define "cheating" as "anything other than Dems winning." I feel absolutely no need to answer for, and certainly not to defend, the fact that you didn't get what you want.

If strict ID laws have no significant negative effect on registration or turnout then it seems obvious that the widespread voter fraud at the polls claimed by conservatives is so much bull shit. So why do we need strict id laws if people are following the law?

I've always been rather dubious of claims of voter fraud. It's really not that much fun standing in line at a poll waiting to vote. I never heard of anybody selling their vote. I don't think I have ever know anyone who ever thought there vote would make a difference. Even thou the chances are being caught illegally voting are small, I can't image a significant number of people taking the chance. There is nothing to be gained.

Voter fraud is difficult to detect on an individual basis, however there have been elections where more votes were cast than those registered to vote in particular areas of our country.

Let's say there is a highway where people are driving like maniacs, so the police go there to set up speed control. Upon seeing the price car, people slow down. Does that mean there were no speeders?

You can't say we don't have a voter problem based on how many we catch.

I agree.
But if say you have little or no voter id checking. Then you implement an excellent id checking system. Where you previously had 10,000 voters you have 9,000 now. Why? Democrats will claim the id system is suppressing the vote and 1,000 valid voters didn't vote. Republicans will claim the id system blocked 1,000 invalid voters. And there is really no way to prove who is right.

Truth be known: Democrats attract some of our lowest forms of life when it comes to voting. We have the homeless, welfare people, just about most of the government dependents.

You see, Republicans take voting extremely seriously. Democrats? Yeah, we will vote if it's convenient enough, if the hours are late enough, if you mail me a ballot, if somebody drives me to the polls, if you can pay me with a pack of cigarettes. But to put some effort into voting? Forget about it.

While getting an ID may take a little work, it's not much different than obtaining a drivers license. However, because voting is not a serious responsibility for many Democrats, it's not worth their time to get the ID.

While I've never done any research on the subject, I have seen articles posted that claim ID had no influence one way or the other. However if there are places that have lower turnout as you claim, it's not because of racism, disenfranchisement, or discrimination. It's because of the lack of enthusiasm that most Republicans do have.

Democrats cannot insult their voters by saying they are lazy. Instead, make up these other excuses like racism to get people behind defeating Voter-ID.

yes, your lack of research is notable.

 

[Flopper]

You've post this a couple times so I decided to research it. It certainly appears it could effect climate change. However, future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases far outweigh any solar effects. There is another problem with the idea that this solar trend is responsible for climate change. We have limited correlation between temperature rises and the solar trend. Since 2003 there doesn't seem to be much interest.
Changing Sun, Changing Climate

I'm getting ready to go to bed so perhaps I'll look at your link tomorrow. But I think if we are all honest about this climate change thing, it's to admit none of know enough about it to make a determination one way or another. I personally believe the earth has a cleansing system we are totally unaware of. After all, how did the earth cleanse itself from volcanic eruptions, forest fires, cow farts?

Are we causing the climate to change? I don't know because we don't have enough evidence to prove it. I do find it doubtful. But if we are, how much are you willing to sacrifice to stop it? Are you willing to go without heat in your home? Give up personal transportation? Do without advanced communications like this internet, cable television, cell phones?

Your problem is that you think you know more than the scientists.

1) We know temperatures are rising ad rising faster than what we know about natural warming.

2) We know the heightened carbon content is the major factor.

3) We know heightened CO2 increases the greenhouse effect & that raises temperature.

4) The increase in CO2 in our atmosphere stems from emissions.

5) Therefore, anyone with a fucking brain knows the solution is to reduce emissions.

6) It takes the Earth decades to natural remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is why we need to act now to prevent higher temp increases in 50-70 years.

7) Our current climate includes things like volcanic eruptions, fires, etc.

We can heat our homes without creating emissions
We can drive electric/hybrid vehicles
What does communications have to do with anything?

The solution is is reduce emissions to the point where the carbon levels are reduced & maintained at lower levels.

The longer we wait, the worse the temperature rise will be.

Instead of working towards this, a bunch of really ignorant people elect a President & Congress that is bought by the fossil fuel industry to fight efforts because the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to high CO2 levels. These people have duped the right into condemning their own offspring to a more difficult life. How stupid is that?

I cut my carbon footprint in half. My just as warm in winter, cooler than yours in the summer, and I drive just as far as I always did.

You are lying & ignorant when you claim you actually might have to sacrifice something for your Children.

No matter what figures you find, there is no way to prove man is responsible. Every single human being emits CO2. There is just no way around it. We have over 7 billion people on this planet and growing. 7 billion little C02 producers. What do we do about those? What happens when it goes to 8 or 9 billion?

What changed in the past 100 years that would increase the CO2? Industrial revolution?

Yes more people but it isn't our CO2 it is the CO2 generated by our transportation, HVAC, factories, etc.



I'll wait for your

CO2 currently makes up .039% of the atmosphere, it has been at that same level since we started measuring it, and was at that same level thousands of years before the industrial revolution according to ice cores and fossil data.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a gas that is necessary for all life on earth.

Maua Loa Observatory
(as of February 10, 2019)

414.27 ppm on February 9, 2019 (NOAA-ESRL)
413.96 ppm on January 22, 2019 (Scripps)
413.86 ppm on January 22, 2019 (NOAA-ESRL)
413.83 ppm on January 21, 2019 (Scripps)
413.69 ppm on February 9, 2019 (Scripps)
413.45 ppm on January 12, 2019 (NOAA-ESRL)

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

 

[Flopper]

Your problem is that you think you know more than the scientists.

1) We know temperatures are rising ad rising faster than what we know about natural warming.

2) We know the heightened carbon content is the major factor.

3) We know heightened CO2 increases the greenhouse effect & that raises temperature.

4) The increase in CO2 in our atmosphere stems from emissions.

5) Therefore, anyone with a fucking brain knows the solution is to reduce emissions.

6) It takes the Earth decades to natural remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is why we need to act now to prevent higher temp increases in 50-70 years.

7) Our current climate includes things like volcanic eruptions, fires, etc.

We can heat our homes without creating emissions
We can drive electric/hybrid vehicles
What does communications have to do with anything?

The solution is is reduce emissions to the point where the carbon levels are reduced & maintained at lower levels.

The longer we wait, the worse the temperature rise will be.

Instead of working towards this, a bunch of really ignorant people elect a President & Congress that is bought by the fossil fuel industry to fight efforts because the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to high CO2 levels. These people have duped the right into condemning their own offspring to a more difficult life. How stupid is that?

I cut my carbon footprint in half. My just as warm in winter, cooler than yours in the summer, and I drive just as far as I always did.

You are lying & ignorant when you claim you actually might have to sacrifice something for your Children.

No matter what figures you find, there is no way to prove man is responsible. Every single human being emits CO2. There is just no way around it. We have over 7 billion people on this planet and growing. 7 billion little C02 producers. What do we do about those? What happens when it goes to 8 or 9 billion?

What changed in the past 100 years that would increase the CO2? Industrial revolution?

Yes more people but it isn't our CO2 it is the CO2 generated by our transportation, HVAC, factories, etc.



I'll wait for your

What.....you think there are different C02's or something?

Whether you want to measure temperatures or climate the last 100 years or the last 1,000 years, it's like measuring two minutes of the day to determine what the weather will be like for the rest of the week.

Our normal temperature here in Cleveland today is 36 degrees. We hit 28 yesterday, 32 today, and tomorrow it's only going up to 26. Is that indicative that our planet is cooling? No. 36 is an average and any deviation of that is perfectly normal. It could be 15 today and 45 by Friday, and that's still normal.

So if the earth is heating for a couple hundred years, it's not abnormal. In 500 years from now, it could be cooling. Nobody knows what the average temperature of our 4.5 billion year old planet is because it's has always been changing during that time.

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

 

[Flopper]

The question is not if sea levels are rising. The question is do we have any control over it.

IF the cave man religion actually had control over sea levels, they really would have risen to validate the AGW cult predictions, That sea levels have not in fact risen at anywhere near the rate predicted is a crises for the cult.

Even though they are rising, there is no evidence to prove man has anything to do with it. God may have very well made this planet with an expiration date. We simply do not know, and it's fruitless to waste trillions of dollars trying to find out.

They are rising at a rate infinitesimal to the predictions of the AGW church, and at a rate consistent with the last 200 years since the little ice age.

And how do you define infinitesimal?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No matter what figures you find, there is no way to prove man is responsible. Every single human being emits CO2. There is just no way around it. We have over 7 billion people on this planet and growing. 7 billion little C02 producers. What do we do about those? What happens when it goes to 8 or 9 billion?

What changed in the past 100 years that would increase the CO2? Industrial revolution?

Yes more people but it isn't our CO2 it is the CO2 generated by our transportation, HVAC, factories, etc.



I'll wait for your

What.....you think there are different C02's or something?

Whether you want to measure temperatures or climate the last 100 years or the last 1,000 years, it's like measuring two minutes of the day to determine what the weather will be like for the rest of the week.

Our normal temperature here in Cleveland today is 36 degrees. We hit 28 yesterday, 32 today, and tomorrow it's only going up to 26. Is that indicative that our planet is cooling? No. 36 is an average and any deviation of that is perfectly normal. It could be 15 today and 45 by Friday, and that's still normal.

So if the earth is heating for a couple hundred years, it's not abnormal. In 500 years from now, it could be cooling. Nobody knows what the average temperature of our 4.5 billion year old planet is because it's has always been changing during that time.

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

 

[Lesh]

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

The industrial revolution has turned it up...whether we can act fast enough to turn it down ) stabilize it) is a function of how much people like you drag their feet

 

[Flopper]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

Sort of. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. We know how to turn it up, produce more greenhouse gases. Turning it down may be much more difficult because we don't know how to remove large volumes of CO2 and we're not sure if any natural effect would restore the balance. So even if we abolish the use of fossil fuels someday and stop the resulting climate change, the climate may not return to the state it was before heavy fossil fuel use. The following link describe the thermostatic effect.
NASA GISS: CO₂: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature

 

[RealDave]

What changed in the past 100 years that would increase the CO2? Industrial revolution?

Yes more people but it isn't our CO2 it is the CO2 generated by our transportation, HVAC, factories, etc.



I'll wait for your

What.....you think there are different C02's or something?

Whether you want to measure temperatures or climate the last 100 years or the last 1,000 years, it's like measuring two minutes of the day to determine what the weather will be like for the rest of the week.

Our normal temperature here in Cleveland today is 36 degrees. We hit 28 yesterday, 32 today, and tomorrow it's only going up to 26. Is that indicative that our planet is cooling? No. 36 is an average and any deviation of that is perfectly normal. It could be 15 today and 45 by Friday, and that's still normal.

So if the earth is heating for a couple hundred years, it's not abnormal. In 500 years from now, it could be cooling. Nobody knows what the average temperature of our 4.5 billion year old planet is because it's has always been changing during that time.

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Trading Natural Gas for coal in generation plants has lowered emissions.

We've been fracking for over 50 years.

 

[RealDave]

Consensus is the foundation of religion.

It has no place in scientific discovery.

"Consensus" is not the BASIS of the agreement...the consensus is a REPORT on what they have FOUND

Huge fail...again

But hey...you keep plugging

DOGMA defines the AGW cult. What you promote is not science, but extremely primitive religion. It's just the volcano god scam.

Sorry, it is science.

Increased CO2 => Increased greenhouse gas effect => warming temperatures Proven science

Ohhh.

So then carbon dioxide is basically a thermostat we can turn up or down, right sploogy?

And CO2 is the most effective element for retarding long wave radiation dissipation, right?

CO2 is a driver of the greenhouse effect. You increase the CO@ in the atmosphere & the effect goes up. The amount goes down it lessens the effect.

What part of that are you too stupid to get?

 

[Flopper]

What changed in the past 100 years that would increase the CO2? Industrial revolution?

Yes more people but it isn't our CO2 it is the CO2 generated by our transportation, HVAC, factories, etc.



I'll wait for your

What.....you think there are different C02's or something?

Whether you want to measure temperatures or climate the last 100 years or the last 1,000 years, it's like measuring two minutes of the day to determine what the weather will be like for the rest of the week.

Our normal temperature here in Cleveland today is 36 degrees. We hit 28 yesterday, 32 today, and tomorrow it's only going up to 26. Is that indicative that our planet is cooling? No. 36 is an average and any deviation of that is perfectly normal. It could be 15 today and 45 by Friday, and that's still normal.

So if the earth is heating for a couple hundred years, it's not abnormal. In 500 years from now, it could be cooling. Nobody knows what the average temperature of our 4.5 billion year old planet is because it's has always been changing during that time.

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What.....you think there are different C02's or something?

Whether you want to measure temperatures or climate the last 100 years or the last 1,000 years, it's like measuring two minutes of the day to determine what the weather will be like for the rest of the week.

Our normal temperature here in Cleveland today is 36 degrees. We hit 28 yesterday, 32 today, and tomorrow it's only going up to 26. Is that indicative that our planet is cooling? No. 36 is an average and any deviation of that is perfectly normal. It could be 15 today and 45 by Friday, and that's still normal.

So if the earth is heating for a couple hundred years, it's not abnormal. In 500 years from now, it could be cooling. Nobody knows what the average temperature of our 4.5 billion year old planet is because it's has always been changing during that time.

For the 800,000 years we have records of, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.

Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.

Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.

In our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.

800,000 years ago we have records? We couldn't even communicate with each other yet. First you say it's mans fault, and then in the same breath, say that this has happened several times before long before the first car or factory. In other words, it wasn't because of us.

Our C02 levels have been decreasing the last couple of decades in this country, and things are worse now than ever? Don't you see a problem with that?

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

 

[Lesh]

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

So coal is fucking awful. NO shit

 

[Lesh]

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline (without ethanol)
157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
The amount of CO2 produced when a fuel is burned is a function of the carbon content of the fuel. The heat content, or the amount of energy produced when a fuel is burned, is mainly determined by the carbon (C) and hydrogen (H) content of the fuel. Heat is produced when C and H combine with oxygen (O) during combustion. Natural gas is primarily methane (CH4), which has a higher energy content relative to other fuels, and thus, it has a relatively lower CO2-to-energy content. Water and various elements, such as sulfur and noncombustible elements in some fuels, reduce their heating values and increase their CO2-to-heat contents.

 

[basquebromance]

the Green New Deal is not AOC's legislation. it is legislation by indigenous people, and the people of Puerto Rico and the coal miners in west virginia and the poor people of The Bronx. it's to give these folks dignity. an economic and ecological future is not up for negotiation. we will not take no for an answer. the wind is at our backs. let's GET R DONE!

 

[Toro]

I've just bought stock in the LA to Honolulu railroad!

 

[basquebromance]

My friends, what is right is not always what is popular, and what is popular isnt always what is right