Study: Temperatures go off the charts around 2047

[get_involved]

By then, with a few more billion people, it will be nice and toasty.

Study: Temperatures go off the charts around 2047 - Las Vegas Sun News

 

[S.J.]

Here we go again, another "sky is gonna fall in 20.." if we don't all get on board the Climate Change Bandwagon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

 

[Billy000]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

 

[S.J.]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

It's not the science I mistrust, it's the scientists who have an agenda and who have been caught lying to us I mistrust.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

 

[ba1614]

Yeah, I'm old enough to remember the predictions the church of environmentalism made during the original earth day too. We should've all fried a decade ago according to them.

Then there's the thing about CO2 levels increasing while there's been no global warming in over 15yrs.

 

[Billy000]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

The vast majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community believes man made climate change is real. To call that political is just bullshit.

 

[ba1614]

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

The vast majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community believes man made climate change is real. To call that political is just bullshit.

Yes, they are so sure they claim it's 'extremely likely' man made lol, and "there would be more warming if not for the cooling", lmfao, yes they are desperate for people to buy into their bullshit they depend on for government dollars

 

[healthmyths]

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

The vast majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community believes man made climate change is real. To call that political is just bullshit.

Are you aware of this? United States Department of Agriculture - Home

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

 

[Billy000]

Sigh. Climate Change alarmism.

You sir/madam, have gone off the deep end.

If you can't trust science, what do you trust exactly? That republican bubble has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

The vast majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community believes man made climate change is real. To call that political is just bullshit.

Are you aware of this? United States Department of Agriculture - Home

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

This is a limited study that does not represent the global research. You can't cherry pick data of a small limited area of the planet and expect it to disprove years of research that says the contrary.

 

[Old Rocks]

What republican bubble? What is this "republican bubble" you speak of?

I don't distrust science. I distrust those who would pervert it for political ends rather than use it to educate others like it is supposed to do. Why is it you distrust reality so? That alarmist bubble of yours has you trapped.

The vast majority of the INTERNATIONAL scientific community believes man made climate change is real. To call that political is just bullshit.

Are you aware of this? United States Department of Agriculture - Home

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

"The net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of US CO2 emissions".

In other words our forests in 2005 were soaking up 10% of the CO2 that the US emits. Crops and brushland soaked up another 5%. That leaves 85% going into the atmosphere and ocean. Learn to read for content.

 

[Vox]

the idiots don't even know that the relation between the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise through "greenhouse effect" is not linear and increase in one does not result in the increase of the other to infinity. It is a logarithmic function graph and looks like this:

and at 400 ppm we have already reached the flattening point

 

[Desperado]

So it is still a little too early to be investing in AC Manufacturers like York, Rheem and Lennox