seven stats on climate change

[RealDave]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Acknowledge your weird watermelon cult and religion?......what for ?

It is science, dumbass.

 

[georgephillip]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

Banks caused the Great Recession.

How?

Banks caused the Great Recession.

How?

Negative amortization?

Causes of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

"Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into 'unsafe' or 'unsound' secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[55]

"A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing.

"Such loans were written into mind-numbingly detailed contracts and then swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing.

"Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid.

"This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated."

Causes of the Great Recession - Wikipedia

 

[ReinyDays]

Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?

1] Use SB, that covers all those factors ...
2] More votes ...
3] That must be a UK thing, here in the US we act however we want ...
4] Sure, I can do that ... no climate changing volcanic eruptions this year ...
5] The climate's not changing ...

Sounds to me you've been fooled again ... some pretty inane questions there, buck-o ... AGW theory only addresses global warming, there's no climate change involved ... the most recent IPCC report has us only warming a couple degrees in 100 years ... so why all the fuss? ...

 

[Redfish]

Humans pollute the air and water, pollution does not change the climate------------------end of story.


moral of the story-----------fight pollution, forget the faux religion of AGW.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011.

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."

Banks caused the Great Recession.

How?

Banks caused the Great Recession.

How?

Negative amortization?

Causes of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

"Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into 'unsafe' or 'unsound' secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[55]

"A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing.

"Such loans were written into mind-numbingly detailed contracts and then swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing.

"Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid.

"This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated."

Causes of the Great Recession - Wikipedia

"Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid.

If you thought an ad for a mortgage at 1% or 1.5% meant a fixed rate mortgage, you may be too dumb to buy a house.

"This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated."

If you didn't notice your loan included negative amortization, you're definitely too dumb to buy a house.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?

1] Use SB, that covers all those factors ...

WTF is SB?

2] More votes ...

Who needs the votes of fools? Do you want be in the same camp with the fools?

3] That must be a UK thing, here in the US we act however we want ...

This ideology is a global problem. Those pests almost killed american nuclear industry.

4] Sure, I can do that ... no climate changing volcanic eruptions this year ...

1:200, that you are wrong, there will be a big erruption and global cooling. But there is only 1:200000 chance, that the global warming will be really catastrophic (like it was in early Eemian) for this year (and 1:2000 for this century).

5] The climate's not changing ...

Everything changes, you know.

Sounds to me you've been fooled again ... some pretty inane questions there, buck-o ... AGW theory only addresses global warming, there's no climate change involved ... the most recent IPCC report has us only warming a couple degrees in 100 years ... so why all the fuss? ...

Global Warming is not a problem at all. The suicidal neo-paganic eco-religion is a problem.

 

[ReinyDays]

WTF is SB?

Stefen-Boltzmann law ... the basis of AGW theory ... something you should probably learn about before you comment on the theory based on that law ...

In light of the above, I see no reason to reply to any of your other comments ... you have your answers, I don't have time to walk you through them ...

 

[SSDD]

WTF is SB?

Stefen-Boltzmann law ... the basis of AGW theory ... something you should probably learn about before you comment on the theory based on that law ...

In light of the above, I see no reason to reply to any of your other comments ... you have your answers, I don't have time to walk you through them ...

Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince. You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses. All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?

 

[ReinyDays]

Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince. You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses. All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?

Surface temperature ... and a surface is an area, Earth is 196 million sq miles ... and this is astrophysics, not climate science ...

Shine a light on the bulb of a thermometer ... the temperature goes up some then stops ... the new temperature depends strictly on the power of the light ...

 

[SSDD]

Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince. You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses. All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?

Surface temperature ... and a surface is an area, Earth is 196 million sq miles ... and this is astrophysics, not climate science ...

Shine a light on the bulb of a thermometer ... the temperature goes up some then stops ... the new temperature depends strictly on the power of the light ...

So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?

 

[ReinyDays]

So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?

You don't believe in the radiative nature of radiation ... remember ... thus you don't know what SB is or isn't ... remember ...

 

[SSDD]

So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?

You don't believe in the radiative nature of radiation ... remember ... thus you don't know what SB is or isn't ... remember ...

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....

And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ...
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...

 

[Silver Cat]

WTF is SB?

Stefen-Boltzmann law ... the basis of AGW theory ... something you should probably learn about before you comment on the theory based on that law ...

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."

So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?

 

[ReinyDays]

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."
So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?

In this context, we use the grey body form where temperature is described in terms of input power ... T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo (where T = equilibrium temperature, S = solar constant, a = albedo, e = emissivity and o = Stefen-Boltzmann constant)

Baleen whales consume phytoplankton, which in turn scrubs the atmosphere of CO2 ... thus more whales, more atmospheric CO2 ... that interrelationship? ... that's just a joke, no one really thought we should be nuking the whales ...
...

 

[SSDD]

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ...
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...

And the non answers roll on.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He probably should gave added “or just parroting what you heard somewhere Lise and probably what fooled you.

any presence of the SB law in the calculations suggesting back radiation are a misuse of the SB law.

and about your claim that back radiation is not possible in a vacuum...still waiting for an explanation of why that might be. Simply admitting that using misspoke is a valid and rational answer.

 

[SSDD]

WTF is SB?

Stefen-Boltzmann law ... the basis of AGW theory ... something you should probably learn about before you comment on the theory based on that law ...

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."

So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?

look at the SB Law in any of its forms...in any form the area of the radiator is required...you can’t effectively calculate the area of a gas...a gas is not even a gray body. Climate science believes that it can rightly pretend that laters of gasses in the atmosphere are gray bodies...they aren’t.

there is a physical law which deals with the temperature of air but they don’t want to use it because it wouldn’t allow them yo demonize CO2. You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.

 

[SSDD]

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."
So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?

In this context, we use the grey body form where temperature is described in terms of input power ... T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo (where T = equilibrium temperature, S = solar constant, a = albedo, e = emissivity and o = Stefen-Boltzmann constant)

Baleen whales consume phytoplankton, which in turn scrubs the atmosphere of CO2 ... thus more whales, more atmospheric CO2 ... that interrelationship? ... that's just a joke, no one really thought we should be nuking the whales ...
...

Got a reference for that bastardized equation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ...
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...

And the non answers roll on.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He probably should gave added “or just parroting what you heard somewhere Lise and probably what fooled you.

any presence of the SB law in the calculations suggesting back radiation are a misuse of the SB law.

and about your claim that back radiation is not possible in a vacuum...still waiting for an explanation of why that might be. Simply admitting that using misspoke is a valid and rational answer.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

Einstein believed in two-way flow of energy.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ...
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...

And the non answers roll on.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He probably should gave added “or just parroting what you heard somewhere Lise and probably what fooled you.

any presence of the SB law in the calculations suggesting back radiation are a misuse of the SB law.

and about your claim that back radiation is not possible in a vacuum...still waiting for an explanation of why that might be. Simply admitting that using misspoke is a valid and rational answer.

There's a thread pinned to the top of the Environment Forum that has numerous simple explanations ... many of which are directed specifically toward you ... through it all, you've rejected the continuous field nature of electromagnetism ... Maxwell, J.C.; A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field; Proceedings of the Royal Society; 1865 ... only matter produces this field, and by definition a vacuum is the lack of matter ... there's no field in a vacuum to redirect the energy back to it's source ... whereas the atmosphere is of matter, and generates this field and allows for back radiation to occur ... force is equal to mass times acceleration whether you believe it or not ...