Green New Deal

[Flopper]

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

 

[Flopper]

With climate change, what will your city's weather feel like in 60 years? - CNN

If we do nothing like the Trumpettes, here is an idea of what to expect 50-75 years from now.

You talk about the NGD's building renovations to curb AGW but if we do nothing, they will need done anyhow. Buildings in Colorado aren't built to take the warmer temps. Take NYC & make it 10 degrees warmer.

How can you say somebody can predict what the weather will be like in 60 years from today when we can't even get an accurate seven day forecast in most cases?

One is weather on a particular day & the other is a trend

To believe that, you have to believe that in 1800, the average temperature in Miami Beech was 64 degrees. It was 64 degrees a hundred years earlier, a thousand years earlier, and 64 degrees ten thousand years earlier. It didn't start changing until the mid 1800's.

Now don't tell my you actually believe that.

Temps are rising much faster than normal. Donlt give that "climate always changes" bullshit.

Here is what I believe, that AHG is real. The effects are happening now, these studies done by scientist in my article give us an idea of what to expect if we do nothing. Some areas will be affected more than others.

And there are scientists that say it's all bunk, but you ignore those scientists because they do not fit your cause. Remember who pays scientists: governments.

So why would government make up these kids of things? Because government has been trying to gain more and more control over people as time moves on. To some degree, they've been fairly successful. But the two things stopping them from total control are energy and healthcare. Once government is able to totally control those two things, they will have total control over the people in this (and other) countries.

In our form of government, this can't be done unless they have the support of the people. So how do we get support of the people? Fear.

Get these people to not only hand over power, but beg you to take it from them. "Please, please government, take total control of our energy before we kill ourselves with it!" This is what they are looking for.

So what we have here is a worldwide government conspiracy to influence collected data and it's interpretation involving tens of thousands of climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and ecologists throughout the world. To that we would have to add the hundreds of pier groups who review and comment on findings and academy's of science. Since the private sector has become involve in both basic(4%) and applied research(24%), we would have to include them in this conspiracy. And governments who have lost their ability to hide their most embarrassing secrets have somehow discovered how to keep this conspiracy a secret.

Not being a great fan of conspiracy theories, I think your idea is fucking crazy.

 

[karpenter]

The left has said we have to sign on to the craziness if we don't the Wicked witch will send her flying "ding bats" out to harass us and say we're not real socialists.

What Happened To Obama Youth Corps
And Their Summer Camps ??

Nothing NAZI-ish About That

 

[Flopper]

Update: Mitch McConnell has said he is DEFINITELY putting the Green New Deal up for a vote, just so that Americans can see which Democrats support it.

Note to Occasional Cortex: when the opposition party is gleefully looking forward to bringing your legislation up for a public vote, you're probably in trouble.

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

 

[baileyn45]

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

It's a rather simplistic take on the situation. In addition, this author appears to make some rather bold assumptions.and claims. For instance,

"the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water" vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface."

I'd be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.

Another,

"the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth"

I would venture he's rather alone on this view as everyone I've heard speak on the subject has flatly stated that we have no idea of what caused the ice ages. There is much conjecture and speculation.

I also find it interesting that they make the point to "exclude water vapor". Even the most strident global warming advocates have admitted long ago that GHGs cannot have the effect which was originally claimed. The models rely on the water vapor feedback to attain the warming. I've yet to hear anyone claim that said feedback can be measured or observed for that matter.

In addition, there are others who point out that increased water vapor would likely lead to increased cloud cover. Clouds are efficient at trapping heat, they are also very good at reflecting sunlight.

However, none of this speaks to the main issue. How much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The estimates vary wildly. I've seen estimates from ranging from .4 to 10 deg. All from "scholarly" sources. James Hansen in 1988 estimated the US would see a 4 C rise by 2020. How's that going?

I've listened to people that can name hundreds of factors that could likely influence climate. The models I've seen described use at most 10 or 12.

Just one time I'd like the warmists admit that they truly do not know.

 

[baileyn45]

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

The extreme weather goes against basic science. The main driver of extreme weather outside of the tropics is the difference in temp between the poles and the tropics. If the poles are going to warm faster than the rest of the planet then the difference between the poles and the tropics would decrease and you would expect less extreme weather events

 

[FA_Q2]

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

It's a rather simplistic take on the situation. In addition, this author appears to make some rather bold assumptions.and claims. For instance,

"the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water" vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface."

I'd be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.

Another,

"the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth"

I would venture he's rather alone on this view as everyone I've heard speak on the subject has flatly stated that we have no idea of what caused the ice ages. There is much conjecture and speculation.

I also find it interesting that they make the point to "exclude water vapor". Even the most strident global warming advocates have admitted long ago that GHGs cannot have the effect which was originally claimed. The models rely on the water vapor feedback to attain the warming. I've yet to hear anyone claim that said feedback can be measured or observed for that matter.

In addition, there are others who point out that increased water vapor would likely lead to increased cloud cover. Clouds are efficient at trapping heat, they are also very good at reflecting sunlight.

However, none of this speaks to the main issue. How much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The estimates vary wildly. I've seen estimates from ranging from .4 to 10 deg. All from "scholarly" sources. James Hansen in 1988 estimated the US would see a 4 C rise by 2020. How's that going?

I've listened to people that can name hundreds of factors that could likely influence climate. The models I've seen described use at most 10 or 12.

Just one time I'd like the warmists admit that they truly do not know.

And therein lies the problem for me. I don't really see any disagreement that the earth is warming - the science is pretty solid there. However, I don't see any real indication that we understand what the actual effects of that are going to be.

 

[baileyn45]

This discussion has entirely gotten on the GW track. The bill contains a whole lot more. Such as..

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States"

Anyone want to take a stab at how to accomplish this one?

 

[baileyn45]

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

It's a rather simplistic take on the situation. In addition, this author appears to make some rather bold assumptions.and claims. For instance,

"the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water" vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface."

I'd be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.

Another,

"the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth"

I would venture he's rather alone on this view as everyone I've heard speak on the subject has flatly stated that we have no idea of what caused the ice ages. There is much conjecture and speculation.

I also find it interesting that they make the point to "exclude water vapor". Even the most strident global warming advocates have admitted long ago that GHGs cannot have the effect which was originally claimed. The models rely on the water vapor feedback to attain the warming. I've yet to hear anyone claim that said feedback can be measured or observed for that matter.

In addition, there are others who point out that increased water vapor would likely lead to increased cloud cover. Clouds are efficient at trapping heat, they are also very good at reflecting sunlight.

However, none of this speaks to the main issue. How much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The estimates vary wildly. I've seen estimates from ranging from .4 to 10 deg. All from "scholarly" sources. James Hansen in 1988 estimated the US would see a 4 C rise by 2020. How's that going?

I've listened to people that can name hundreds of factors that could likely influence climate. The models I've seen described use at most 10 or 12.

Just one time I'd like the warmists admit that they truly do not know.

And therein lies the problem for me. I don't really see any disagreement that the earth is warming - the science is pretty solid there. However, I don't see any real indication that we understand what the actual effects of that are going to be.

While I tend to agree, I'm not so sure that the science is as solid as most think, even on the temperature record. If you really delve into how the temp data is attained it can be a bit worrisome.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

 

[karpenter]

This discussion has entirely gotten on the GW track. The bill contains a whole lot more. Such as..

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States"

Anyone want to take a stab at how to accomplish this one?

And That Includes People
That Don't Feel Like Working At All

 

[Ame®icano]

This discussion has entirely gotten on the GW track. The bill contains a whole lot more. Such as..

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States"

Anyone want to take a stab at how to accomplish this one?

"all people of the United States"

They're not even saying "citizens".

Anyways, they're trying to push for "universal basic income" (UBI), which is just another word for welfare. In their fucked up heads, it's not welfare, it's UBI. I posted about it earlier, so I don't want to repeat.

Just note, that every worker in US already is receiving UBI in form of "earned income tax credit".

 

[karpenter]

Anyways, they're trying to push for "universal basic income" (UBI), which is just another word for welfare. In their fucked up heads, it's not welfare, it's UBI.

This Was On The McGovern Platform Of 1972
Cortez's Resolution Includes
People That Refuse To Work

Print This Out For Future Reference
As Nothing They Want Ever Goes Away

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf
And This Is Nowhere Near The Idea
Of Tearing Down (Or Retro-Fitting)
Every Building In America
Every.Single.Building.
To Green Energy
Shutting Down All Other Producers
By FORCE, If Necessary

 

[RealDave]

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too fucking stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

Wow. Mr Scientist Truck Driver telling climatologists how to study science.

 

[karpenter]

Wow. Mr Scientist Truck Driver telling climatologists how to study science.

His Avocation Doesn't Make Him Stupid
Just You A Snob

There's That Self-Educated Fort Wayne Guy
That Preens Himself As An MIT Professor
Go Check His Self-Graded Science Dissertations

 

[RealDave]

Year after year of rising average temperatures of the earth is not silly. 20 years ago the data was sketchy but not today. One would have to be blind or a fool to ignore it.

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

It's a rather simplistic take on the situation. In addition, this author appears to make some rather bold assumptions.and claims. For instance,

"the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water" vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface."

I'd be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.

Another,

"the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth"

I would venture he's rather alone on this view as everyone I've heard speak on the subject has flatly stated that we have no idea of what caused the ice ages. There is much conjecture and speculation.

I also find it interesting that they make the point to "exclude water vapor". Even the most strident global warming advocates have admitted long ago that GHGs cannot have the effect which was originally claimed. The models rely on the water vapor feedback to attain the warming. I've yet to hear anyone claim that said feedback can be measured or observed for that matter.

In addition, there are others who point out that increased water vapor would likely lead to increased cloud cover. Clouds are efficient at trapping heat, they are also very good at reflecting sunlight.

However, none of this speaks to the main issue. How much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The estimates vary wildly. I've seen estimates from ranging from .4 to 10 deg. All from "scholarly" sources. James Hansen in 1988 estimated the US would see a 4 C rise by 2020. How's that going?

I've listened to people that can name hundreds of factors that could likely influence climate. The models I've seen described use at most 10 or 12.

Just one time I'd like the warmists admit that they truly do not know.

See, it is impossible to teach a fucking Trtumpette anything.

And NO, hanson did not predict a 4 C change'.

igure 1: Pat Michaels' presentation of Hansen's projections before US Congress

Figure 2: Projected global surface air temperature changes in Scenario






Why do you have to be suicha fucking liar?

 

[RealDave]

Wow. Mr Scientist Truck Driver telling climatologists how to study science.

His Avocation Doesn't Make Him Stupid
Just You A Snob

There's That Self-Educated Fort Wayne Guy
That Preens Himself As An MIT Professor
Go Check His Self-Graded Science Dissertations

What do you call a person with no science education that thinks they know science?

 

[RealDave]

Anyways, they're trying to push for "universal basic income" (UBI), which is just another word for welfare. In their fucked up heads, it's not welfare, it's UBI.

This Was On The McGovern Platform Of 1972
Cortez's Resolution Includes
People That Refuse To Work

Print This Out For Future Reference
As Nothing They Want Ever Goes Away

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf
And This Is Nowhere Near The Idea
Of Tearing Down (Or Retro-Fitting)
Every Building In America
Every.Single.Building.
To Green Energy
Shutting Down All Other Producers
By FORCE, If Necessary

The really funny part about the outrage from the Trumpettes, is that doing this will likely save people money.


How will buildings AC units handle a longer, hotter summer? Will they need an upgrade to contend with temperatures 7-8 degrees hotter. It will throw off all capacity calculations made when the units were installed.

 

[karpenter]

From 1960, Huh....

 

[jc456]

They claim that man made pollution of the air is causing the climate of the planet to change

"They claim?”

You mean science shows.

where?