How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[jc456]

You are a fossil fuel whore!

So nothing as I stated would you present.

BTW, I exist thanks to fossil fuels.
It's amazing you don't know that. wow.
You must have missed out on that education huh.

 

[Billo_Really]

So nothing as I stated would you present.

BTW, I exist thanks to fossil fuels.
It's amazing you don't know that. wow.
You must have missed out on that education huh.

I don't give a shit what you are thankful for.

 

[Paracetamol63]

And there are some plants that die if it gets too cold.

Yes! So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable. Sometimes it is NOT.

 

[Paracetamol63]

But that's how the greens approach it.

I honestly don't care what regular folks say on the topic. I don't even care about Al Gore. I'm really only interested in what the professionals are thinking.

 

[Paracetamol63]

which ones?

Ummm, I thought you were going to respond when you demanded the citation for the volcano point. You didn't when I provided the citation.

Can we stick with one topic at a time? You need to continue your point about the volcano citation I provided (Mt. PInatubo)

Thanks

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes! So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable. Sometimes it is NOT.

Sometimes warming is better?

 

[Paracetamol63]

Now he'll ask some other stupid question or deny the article.

He went ahead and simply ignored.

I don't understand why people think they can demand demand demand and then never do anything with it.

It's almost like it's a game to them. They aren't really interested in the topic (and the paper would be far too complex for the other poster to understand anyway, so I "get" that part of it).

 

[Paracetamol63]

Sometimes warming is better?

Possibly. Not universally, though.

Why would you assume that? Have you ever grown a garden at your home? You surelyl must know that not all plants like heat and some don't like cold.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I honestly don't care what regular folks say on the topic. I don't even care about Al Gore. I'm really only interested in what the professionals are thinking.

Maybe you should stop complaining when I point out the errors in what regular folks say?

People will think you care.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Possibly. Not universally, though.

Don't tell the regular folks.

 

[jc456]

I don't give a shit what you are thankful for.

Well you wouldn’t be alive without fossil fuel.

 

[jc456]

Ummm, I thought you were going to respond when you demanded the citation for the volcano point. You didn't when I provided the citation.

Can we stick with one topic at a time? You need to continue your point about the volcano citation I provided (Mt. PInatubo)

Thanks

I provided a quote from your link, it went to Stann but you can read it. It doesn’t make your point.

 

[jc456]

Yes! So you can't just go thinking that warming is obviously ALWAYS preferable. Sometimes it is NOT.

Do healthy pipes burst in warm weather or in cold?

 

[BothWings]

Because liberal elitists at Harvard tell us so. DUH!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I provided a quote from your link, it went to Stann but you can read it. It doesn’t make your point.

You deliberately ripped a snippet out of its required context and stupidly asked "why?" as if you didn't already know. Just be honest for once and admit you get paid to troll for Big Oil. You'll live longer freed of that guilt at least.

6. Conclusions​

[35] We have defined the response to 20th century volcanic forcing on the basis of simulations with the NCAR/USDOE parallel climate model (PCM). In total, there are 16 simulations that include volcanic forcing. These multiple realizations allow us to reduce the noise due to internally generated variability by 65% and to produce a much more well defined volcano response signature than can be seen in a single realization.

-More-

 

[emilynghiem]

Address and climate change should not be a political matte, it affects all of us. I agree with that. But rather than form a whole another infrastructure that's just say x amount of dollars a year will address the issue and it can't be increased or curtailed by a political party or used for any other purpose.

Thanks Stann: For longterm environmental restoration, and for sustainable energy development,
no these problems aren't going to be solved on a yearly quota basis.

I can foresee consortiums meetings and setting up budgets and longterm projections for
what it will take to solve problems, per site and case.

Restoring wildlife in the Gulf or restabilizing ecosystem populations so they are back on track
is going to take generations of replenishment.

I would say California could refinance their entire state budget by assessing the cost over 20-30 or 50 years
to do the work to restore forest and ocean ecosystems. And create educational internships for longterm
studies to monitor the natural populations. If the cost for each project is added up, then apply that cost
as the VALUE of that land, California could use this foundation as the basis of monetary credit. And bank
against the true cost of maintaining that land, and let that be their state Reserve system for currency.

So based on the true land value where the natural resources are included as the basis of the economic value,
then that can be counted as capital or equity to base the system of paying for the work and studies to be
done. Students can earn their education while doing public service, and get paid internships and jobs that
are sustainable.

If each area is mapped out for longterm costs of solving problems and creating "sustainable jobs and economy"
then the currency should follow that budget for the labor and time it will involve.

Not the other way.

If you set up the value of the currency based on destroying environment and just using commercial value of time and goods,
then this will be in conflict with the value based on preserving the natural resources as the basis of services, capital and credit.

I recommend looking into what will solve the problems first.
Then base the economy on what work, jobs and services can be sustained.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I would say California could refinance their entire state budget by assessing the cost over 20-30 or 50 years
to do the work to restore forest and ocean ecosystems. And create educational internships for longterm
studies to monitor the natural populations. If the cost for each project is added up, then apply that cost
as the VALUE of that land, California could use this foundation as the basis of monetary credit. And bank
against the true cost of maintaining that land, and let that be their state Reserve system for currency.

You want California to issue their own currency?

 

[Stann]

By the way, Krakatoa, was not mentioned in that link. Just saying. It's strange that the troll outsmarts the nontroll huh?

I wasn't talking about the article, I use my own specific example out of memory.

 

[Stann]

Thanks Stann: For longterm environmental restoration, and for sustainable energy development,
no these problems aren't going to be solved on a yearly quota basis.

I can foresee consortiums meetings and setting up budgets and longterm projections for
what it will take to solve problems, per site and case.

Restoring wildlife in the Gulf or restabilizing ecosystem populations so they are back on track
is going to take generations of replenishment.

I would say California could refinance their entire state budget by assessing the cost over 20-30 or 50 years
to do the work to restore forest and ocean ecosystems. And create educational internships for longterm
studies to monitor the natural populations. If the cost for each project is added up, then apply that cost
as the VALUE of that land, California could use this foundation as the basis of monetary credit. And bank
against the true cost of maintaining that land, and let that be their state Reserve system for currency.

So based on the true land value where the natural resources are included as the basis of the economic value,
then that can be counted as capital or equity to base the system of paying for the work and studies to be
done. Students can earn their education while doing public service, and get paid internships and jobs that
are sustainable.

If each area is mapped out for longterm costs of solving problems and creating "sustainable jobs and economy"
then the currency should follow that budget for the labor and time it will involve.

Not the other way.

If you set up the value of the currency based on destroying environment and just using commercial value of time and goods,
then this will be in conflict with the value based on preserving the natural resources as the basis of services, capital and credit.

I recommend looking into what will solve the problems first.
Then base the economy on what work, jobs and services can be sustained.

Unfortunately in the end I don't think people will act until they are forced to act and that means it's going to get very bad before it'll start getting better. People keep saying how much is it going to cost if they do it, they never asked the obvious question how much is it going to cost if they don't do it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well you wouldn’t be alive without fossil fuel.

You know, whenI first started driving, gas was 29 cents a gallon.