We need a new thread to discuss this issue. The other threads previously started "Global Warming" and "Dangerous Global Cooling" have too much "baggage." Need a fresh, new thread.
Printable View
We need a new thread to discuss this issue. The other threads previously started "Global Warming" and "Dangerous Global Cooling" have too much "baggage." Need a fresh, new thread.
I'll start with an interesting little story out of Argentina.
http://www.lifedaily.com/story/shock...BackyardFossil
This animal is said to have gone extinct tens of thousands of years ago, the glyptodon, the ancestor of the armadillo. These remains are estimated to be 10,000 years old. Preserved in such pristine condition because of the mineral-rich mud. That's cool by itself. I like reading about prehistoric animals and such.
But, scientists explaining what happened to the glyptodon said they died out from "climate change" they thought, 30,000 years ago. Apparently not, since this fellow dates back only 10,000 years ago. But, "scientists" can be forgiven for that minor mistake, because they are, after all, SCIENTISTS! And all SCIENCE is to be believed without any question. Back to the main point....these scientists say that the climate changed in southern Argentina, 30K years back, and the glyptodon couldn't cope. That happens. But....how could the climate change when mankind wasn't burning fossil fuels then? The GW zealots tell us that "climate change" is caused by humans and our unholy activities destroying Mother Earth. There are no other reasons. The climate cannot change on its own, no way! that is scientifically impossible. Nope! only mankind can cause climate change.
Guess the poor ole glyptodons didn't get that memo.
Glyptodoians were that way. They never paid attention.
What's the matter, salty, got zinged!? Truth hurts, eh.
Hardly, but your post contains some significant errors that I find difficult to understand how a college grad could make them. Why don't you go buy a college textbook on climate change, read it, do the questions at the end of each chapter and then perhaps you can understand why your comments about climate change are meaningless. Hoping the best for you, as always.
dawg80, this will make it easy for you.
https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Warning: clicking on this link might be the start of your journey of awakening from a very deep sleep.
A wise man once told me "a book will lay real still and let you write anything you want in it"
Not sure I would call a lot of those "real science" articles "baggage".
The earth warms and the earth cools and has since it was formed.....as well as the seas coming in and the seas going out.
Nuff said. There is no global warming crisis nor climate change crisis. Period! And there is plenty of science in those past threads that prove it along with what a total sham for the almighty $$ the current religion (global warming/climate change) of the liberals has become.
Well, the thread got long and cumbersome...
I have always stated, as I do now, I stand behind real science. Unfortunately there are those who use so-called "science" to further a political agenda. And too many people are clueless what real science is.
On this topic, the question is NOT whether the Earth's climate changes....it does. The question is humankind's role in it.
And, more recently, the issue of the Paris Accords. Scientists, even those on the manmade GW bandwagon (er, gravy train) stated the Paris Accords would do little to nothing to alter the "problem," even if every nation did 100% of what they pledged to do. I saw that on CNN! (that CNN producer who allowed that information to get out has probably been fired).
Because one measure doesn't fully solve a problem means you shouldn't take the measure, even when it is a step in the right direction, even a critical first step? You think there is a one step solution to addressing CO2 emissions?
This was just political grandstanding. We had flexibility under the Paris accords to do the things that Trump pretextually suggested that he would rather do. The cost of this grandstanding was US leadership and influence.
Trump showed excellent leadership and influence, for America and the world, by ditching this rediculous agreement. We/America will not be screwed again (financially, jobs, destruction of companies and allowing other countries like China and India to set their own limits) by the junior high type negotiating tactics as witnessed under Democrat "leadership".
Oh yeah? You still think we have a seat at that table? Do you think we will have any future influence on global emissions agreements?
Do you think our traditional allies will rush to back us when we are looking for international community's support on something that we think is important?
Yes, absolutely, absolutely
We are the second largest polluter in the world. They can't do anything without us. There is a reason people have been kissing China and India's ass to get them to participate. Because if they can't get them to particpate their agreement is meaningless (if the alarmists are to be believed). It's the same situation for the US. If you think otherwise then you have fallen for the anti Trump media.
We are still one of the great (if not greatest) military super powers in the world. Our allies will still be our allies because they would rather keep us on their side.
Further, the media is saying we are going to lose our technological leadership by dropping out of the Paris accords. Do you think the Elon Musk/ clean energy types will stop working on new technology or move all of their operations overseas? Do you think California and New York and other liberal bastions will stop pushing for more green energy and research? Certainly there will be some drain as other countries may offer better incentives/tax cuts/ grants to pursue the technology, but do you really think the US will cease to be a major player in the arena?
Lets say that everyone(other countries) is so pissed about the Paris accords that the decide to place punitive taxes on any US exports or stop trading with the US entirely. They could certainly do some damage to our economy. Would Europe, South Korea, Japan be stronger with a weaker US economy? If the US is greatly weakened who would be the new superpowers in the world? Is it better to have an unchecked China with no one to oppose them?
There are quite a few countries that would like to attain greater status with us checking out - Russia, China, India, maybe Germany.
Yes, we still have the strongest military. But soft power gives you an alternative way to leverage international affairs so that you don't have to use your military.
But the enemies we face today are often round holes to our military square peg. Our enemies are not always centralized governments with militaries that follow conventional rules of warfare. They are geographically distributed and require a huge amount of international cooperation to deal with. Their ability to rely on us is why they share information with us - and not because they think we will destroy them on a battlefield.
As far as people being willing to work with us on climate, forget about it. India and China are the biggest concerns and this is the deal that the international community could agree on - well, except Trump, Syria, and Nicaragua. That took decades to accomplish because China and India need cheap energy to sustain their growth and development into first world nations. If the US position is that climate change is a hoax, that doesn't leave much middle ground for other countries to deal with us.
As far as the alternate energy market in the US... of course it will continue. But the fact of the matter is that this agreement was an opportunity to help accelerate the growth of these already large and growing markets and provide a more level playing field for oil companies to internalize their carbon costs and fairly compete on technology in a global market.
All this to save a dying coal market that has very little potential to create the kind of job growth potential sticking to this agreement could have provided.
I've added numbers to clarify what I am responding to.
1. How will everyone else in the world feel about these countries becoming the new powers? Will everyone want to promote those countries over the United States?
2. Agree, but a strong military and strong economy contribute to the soft power as well. China doesn't have it's diplomatic power because of its adherence to climate change.
3. Agree. Certainly Europe doesn't think we will destroy them. But if the shit hits the fan they will want us with them rather than sitting on the sidelines. Particularly if their adversary is China, Russia, North Korea etc.
4. The only way that works is if the United States is unimportant on the global scale emissions. That's not the case. Say Trump does what everyone is implying he is going to do and let loose American industry to pollute at will. Does it become more or less important to bring the United States to the negotiating table? It doesn't matter what the US position is. Perhaps we may see foreign powers "meddling" in the next election to get someone more environmentally friendly in office. How much do you want to bet that it won't be seen as "meddling" when they are supporting the right candidate.
5. The agreement also included us shelling out a good chunk of change to subsidize the green energy markets in developing markets. I honestly am a little confused on the amount as the "news" organizations do a poor job of reporting this type of thing. I've seen 3 billion, 3 billion per year, and a possibly unrelated story about Bloomberg offering to put up the 15 million that will be lost because of the US pulling out of the agreement. There is nothing stopping us from making the same advances outside of the Paris agreement. All it did was charge us a entrance fee to put a minimal amount of pressure on us to meet an arbitrary target.
6. This is an assumption on your part. I agree coal is dying. Perhaps the thought is that letting it die of natural causes is better for the economy than assisted (forced) suicide. Again the agreement does nothing for job growth. We can make the same investments outside of the agreement if it will benefit the economy. The Paris accords add nothing of value to that.
1. They certainly aren't tied to the US. I don't know how much you have read about or studied soft power, but by many metrics we aren't the country most others are influenced by currently - prior to Brexit, at least - that would have been the U.K., then Germany. Of course the "measurement" of soft power depends on the model and certain models may be more apt to certain applications of soft power. Regardless, we are not the king of the hill and pulling out of Climate accords, criticizing mayors in other countries, publicly dressing down allies in public, and tweeting incredulous things all hurt it.
I can agree with all of that, but that was never the argument. The argument is we are are world power and certainly one of the top world powers. While many countries might rather see the UK (at least before Brexit) or France or whoever take our place at the big boy table, the countries that are in an actual position to usurp us are still likely to be viewed as less benevolent than the United States (even with Trump in charge). Are China or India going to intercede when Russia invades the Ukraine? Will they commit the majority of military power to the UN to prevent them from going further? Are they going to help with border disputes in the middle east? Will they offer more than the bare minimum if it does not involve them directly?
That's not to speak of the economic impact we have as well.
I will agree that this is not a positive impact on our soft power and neither are Trumps tweets. The question that needs to be asked though is what value can we place on the soft power lost vs potential for economic gain.
The very scientists manmade-GW zealots worship say the Paris Accords would have little to no impact on "the problem." That, even if all 160+ nations (I think that's the number of Paris signees) all fulfilled their pledges to reduce greenhouse gasses. So, the alarmists can just stuff it!
The Accords are nothing but a wealth transfer....and probably a "bribe"... to gain favor on some other issue(s) that Europe was counting on with China, India, etc... and they were just so sure the USA would shoulder the lion's share of the payment. So, the leaders of these European nations know the truth, and while they might holler publically (for political reasons with their own voters), privately they know Trump just trumped 'em and know we have a real leader again. Really, the first since Reagan.
China aims to spend $360 Billion on renewable energy by 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/w...ment.html?_r=0
Hooray for China!
What you guys are not taking into account is the fact that China/India and other developing countries use less energy per capifa and we have already used vastly more energy than any other country (and emitted far more CO2) to get to the developed status that we currently are in. So it is not a defensible position to say, yeah we already filled this landfill up 80% of the way and got ahead of you guys in doing so, but - TOUGH, we all have an equal share in managing the responsibility for this remaining 20%. Who would possibly agree to that? Some redress was needed to address the catch-up development needs of countries that have not exploited carbon to the extent the US already has.
Here is some data for cumulative CO2 emissions by country over time:
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change
I posted a link on the other thread, so I didn't do it again here. But MIT scientists have stated that if everyone involved in the Paris accords were to completely fulfill their agreements with regards to CO2 emissions, it would only decrease the temperature by 0.3 degrees F by the year 2100.
Are the MIT scientists wrong? definitely seems like a wealth transfer ponzi scheme to me.
The MIT professors already responded. I guess you didn't bother to read what they had to say about Trump's misuse of their study?
If there is not one single thing we can do to prevent all terrorism, should we do nothing until we can figure out and agree what that one thing is? Or is it better to do the one thing now that the vast majority of experts agree will work to reduce terrorism while we continue to work on other improvements?
What you're not taking into account is you're starting with a false premise: that humans cause climate change. So, all those stats of the US does this % or that % are totally irrelevant.
Let me say again (I have posted this many times before), I believe in keeping the environment as clean as possible. There are practical, sensible things we can/should do. And yes, humans can adversely impact the micro-environment in which we live i.e. we can pollute a river, we can lower air quality in major cities and downwind of a factory. Companies have a right to make products and earn a profit by doing it, fine. They don't have a right to make me smell their factory or breathe in whatever they are spewing out. So! if they have to put a stack-scrubber on their big chimneys, and those are expensive, tough! that's the cost of doing business.
I have no problem with making internal combustion engines as efficient as possible. Getting 50mpg > 20mpg. I have no issue using solar and wind power where it is practical. Same for other alternate energy sources. Etc...
The single biggest problem facing humans today is NOT some contrived global warming BS, it's access to clean drinking water. Right now there are 700 million people worldwide who have no, zero, nada source of dependable drinking water. And there are tens of millions of others whose water source is precarious and could be lost any day. This is a REAL problem.
The whole "climate change" movement is nothing but a politically-driven, self-serving effort to force a "one world" view onto all of us. It has nothing to do with real science or a real concern about the Earth's climate(s). (have to use plural since our planet has multiple climates). Nope, sorry. A single mega-volcano can spew more crap into the atmosphere in a ONE DAY, then all the activity of humans in the US in 30 years. There are right now 18 active volcanos around the world, none of them a mega type. But all of them are spewing gasses into the atmosphere 24/7. (could not find data on what the combined effect of the 18 is). There have been 64 "major" eruptions around the world in the past 100 years. Not sure how the site I viewed is defining "major." Of course each eruption event lasts for some time period, in some cases a year+ (365 days). I guarantee the combined emissions of these 64 volcanos absolutely dwarfs the combined activity of humans during the same time frame (100 years). The primary gas emitted by volcanos, after water vapor, of course, is CO2, followed by SO2.
If you get these volcanos to sign the Paris Accords, you might have something....
Then, there's this little fact: the cause of the Earth being warm at all is.....[drum roll]...THE SUN! That's right children, it's true. The sun causes all the "global warming." Well, it's the source. Don't believe me? Okay. Take the sun away and watch how fast the Earth turns into a giant snowball. And, kids, the sun is a system. It's a nuclear fusion power plant and as a natural system, it is not 100% efficient. It goes thru cycles, warming and cooling. Cooling??? Well, it's all relative. And, the sun doesn't have to change very much (by its standards) to affect the Earth. These cycles can last many, many years....like tens of thousands of years...during which time the Earth will warm or cool depending on the amount of solar radiation hitting it.
In the 1600's the Earth experienced a mini-ice age and guess what!, the planet has been gradually warming ever since, recovering from that ice age. What caused that mini-ice age? Well, the sun went thru one of its cooling cycles, and since then has been returning to its normal level of activity. That means the Earth is experiencing warming too. Keep in mind while 400 years is a long time for we humans, it is a mere blip to the sun.
Hey, I know! get the sun to sign the Paris Accords too!
The real issue is a cost benefit analysis one - what is the energy and cost tradeoff with CO2 reduction and how do you optimize that to balance the need for energy for the amount of harm it causes to emit.
But the rest of your missive just highlights why concessions are needed for developing countries and why the US bears more burden on this issue.
You manage to be 100% wrong every time. Actually, it's the Pacific Rim countries with the highest concentration of offending volcanos. So, if we are to lay blame, the US is very low on that scale. We've had Mt. St. Helens, 1980, and it did put crap into the atmosphere. But that event is one of the least significant given the nature of that eruption. Mt. St. Helens was not spewing before the massive explosion, and quickly shut off (its vents were plugged by the debris of the eruption) afterwards. It had some minor events for a few years, the last significant one was in 1982, as it vented for two days.
But, I don't blame the Pacific Rim countries, and do not advocate they make a cash payment to us to compensate. It's just good ole Mother Earth doing her thing.
What a freaking waste of American taxpayer $166 billion!!
'Climate change' fight
has cost you
astronomical figure
New report shows bill comparable to entire Apollo moon-mission program
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/#loVXc1UtC5Rhc2Oq.99
WASHINGTON – The U.S. government spent nearly as much fighting “climate change” between 1993 and 2014 as was spent on the entire Apollo program between 1962 and 1973, according to a new report.
A May 2017 report from the Capital Research Center (CRS) states that “from FY 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion.”
The total includes more than $26.1 billion from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, as well as regular annual budget amounts and federal tax credits distributed over a period of 21 years.
In comparison, the U.S. spent $200 billion, adjusted for inflation, on the Apollo space program, which ran from 1962 until 1973 and flew 17 missions, including Apollo 11, which put a man on the moon for the first time. Through the program, the U.S. sent seven men to the moon and back.
The CRS report comes just as President Trump has announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Under the agreement, the U.S. would have been obligated to pay $3 billion to a green fund by 2020, among other expected contributions.
The report shows that annual expenditures on climate change have increased 490 percent since 1993, and the annual amount going through the U.N. for combating climate change internationally has climbed by 440 percent.
Most of the money is not going to climate-science research but to control CO2 emissions based on inadequately tested hypotheses dating to the 1970s. The amount of money spent on further research and experimentation in climate science is $42.49 billion, according to the report. It’s little more than 25 percent of total expenditure on climate change, meaning that 75 percent of the U.S. climate-change budget is dedicated to “efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and their presumed, but not demonstrated, effects.”
Discover the truth behind the conspiracy that threatens your future. Sen. Inhofe exposes how global warming will be used to rob America of its freedom, independence and prosperity. Don’t miss “The Greatest Hoax.”
The U.S. justification for such spending combating CO2 emissions is based on the 1979 Charney Report, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The Charney Report theorized that if CO2 in the atmosphere were to double, the earth’s surface temperature would increase by roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 degrees. However, the Charney Report also predicted a more powerful warming trend caused by an increase in water vapor, earth’s dominant greenhouse gas.
The CRS report states: “In 1979, scientists lacked any comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures, so the Charney Report’s guesses could not be confirmed or denied. But to cause this ‘top-down warming,’ the warming trends in the atmosphere would have to be more pronounced than surface warming trends.”
That’s because much of the energy from atmospheric warming is lost in space and doesn’t not affect surface temperature.
Despite the fact that the Charney Report’s data was unconfirmed, it heavily influenced the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified, with stipulations, by the Senate. The treaty’s main goal was “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
The UNFCCC aimed to combat the rise of greenhouse gas, even though insufficient data had been gathered to confirm the Charney Report’s hypothesis that greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming.
Meanwhile, “independent researchers have tested the Charney Report’s hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting,” the CRS report states.
New methods and equipment have been developed to test the hypothesis, and the data does not confirm it. As the report declares, “the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded.”
However, the U.S. government continues to fund projects based on the faulty hypothesis.
Although it seems clear that the bulk of U.S. climate-change funding should go into research so that the actual cause of climate change, as well as its potential impact can be ascertained, more than $104.25 billion goes to projects other than scientific research, compared to only $42.49 billion sent to research projects.
Annual expenditures in research have increased by 200 percent since 1993, while other climate change-related expenditures have gone up by an astounding 850 percent. The combined cost of climate-change policy has been $166 billion from 1993 to 2014.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/climate-c...HWhv6F7Dj4M.99
Tyler, as atmospheric CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold also increases.
What is the hottest planet in the solar system....well, surface temps?
Other countries got mad at Trump for getting the US out of the Paris Climate change crap!!!! The best analogy I herd of it is this: Everyone in the restaurant was told that someone else would be paying for their food. Then, all of a sudden, they notice that the person who was going to pay is leaving early!!!
Great analogy! It is spot on. The Paris Climate Accord has always been about nothing more than wealth redistribution. More specifically, it is about redistributing the wealth of tax paying Americans. Obama knew that when he signed the thing. Thank goodness President Trump saw through that bullshit and PUT AMERICA FIRST.
Actually, it is the opposite. We are the largest historical CO2 emitter.
So a better analogy is we showed up at the bar first and drank all the expensive liquor, everybody else showed up a few hours later and we all shared what was left, and then after we agreed on a fair way to split the tab (us paying more, of course, for having enjoyed the finer stuff and more of it), we bounced while sticking everyone else with the tab.
But that is how Trump conducts his personal and business affairs too.
It is embarrassing to be associated with this type of behavior.
I feel your pain, Goosey. I think you should leave the US for....North Korea. But, please, leave this forum first. Do us all a favor.
The real problem is that people who think that CO2 pollution is a hoax (it isn't) refuse to be educated about the real and present danger that climate change represents not only to the USA but to the entire planet. If you want the GoM to be lapping at the Baton Rouge city limits, keep think that climate change caused by CO2 and methane pollution is a libtard's fantasy. You all are getting played by the fossil fuel industry and you don't even know it.
Correct!!! You win a cookie.
Mercury has surface temps of about 500F, but Venus hits 800F. Mercury is so close to the sun that the sun's gravity sucked all of its atmosphere away, therefore, as Mercury rotates, that portion of its surface facing away from the sun "cools" off, thus holding its surface temps somewhat in check. But Venus is covered in a thick atmosphere, acting as a blanket, and it doesn't have a chance to cool off. Venus is called the "Greenhouse Planet" for that reason.
So, some will say "ahah!" that's why "we humans" need to stop polluting our atmosphere. We could end up like Venus! Yep....if there was any evidence "we humans" could have that much impact. But, volcanos put more crap into the atmosphere in a couple of days than decades of combined human activity, and volcanos have been doing this for thousands of years....yet, we are still not Venus. Right now there are 18 active, spewing volcanos around the world putting more CO2 (and SO2) into the atmosphere daily! than all combined human activity can produce in a year. And, there are presently no mega-volcanos active. Just one mega-volcano can match decades of human activity.
But...here's the problem. Volcanos can't be extorted for $billions. Therefore, the fake "climate change" movement doesn't want people to understand the reality.
And....how did Venus manage to "climate change" itself into what it is today with ZERO human activity? Can it be that such things happen "naturally?"
Dawg80, your science is faulty about how much CO2 volcanoes emit into the atmosphere. That's what happens when you are spoon-fed by Rush.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/vol...al-warming.htm
If you use your brain and a little common sense you would easily realize that over the past 6000 years volcanoes have been erupting and yet the level of atmospheric CO2 had remained constant at about 250 parts per million and yet when humans started burning fossil fuels around 1850 the level of CO2 has jumped from 250 ppm to over 400 ppm today. Duh.
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Also, the Earth will never have runaway greenhouse effect because water vapor in the atmosphere prevents it.
Not true. That so-called increase in CO2 level has been debunked. It's just fake data invented by the extortion crowd.
Rolling on the floor laughing at the republicans. Have all 3 branches of government and all they can do is act like a little puppy running around in circles chasing its own tail. Trump is the best and biggest snowflake of them all. A draft dodging coward of NYC who is already a failure as POTUS, after ONLY FIVE MONTHS !!!!
The REALLY good news is that there is so much dirt on Trump that the Special Counsel will be around for at least the next 3 and a half years trying to sort it all out.
Only the ignorant, uninformed, stupid ones still want Obama. He will go down in history as the WORST POTUS in history!!! All his corrupt crap will be uncovered. That is why he wanted Crooked Hillary to win...so she would sweep all OBOZO's corrupt crap under the rug...along with hers!!!
In the 2018 race...what will the incumbent Democrats say when they are asked what they did for us (the American people)???? All they can say is: well, we did NOTHING...didn't try to get better medical care for you, lower your taxes, or get better infrastructure. We were too busy being obstructionists against Trump!!! Do you think anyone in their right mind will vote for these Democrat losers????
The Judges are merely doing their job to protect our Constitutional rights. Surely you support and defend our Constitutional rights, don't you? Trump could have got a travel lockout on these Muslim countries if he had gone about it in the right way. However, the guy is incompetent and didn't write the Executive Order properly and not only that he blabbed about a Muslim travel ban. He should have merely changed the visa standards for all countries with a focus on certain characteristics without ever mentioning religion or specific countries.
He has no self control. It was a self inflicted wound - like all the other ones he has "suffered."
dawg80, CO2 pollution is real and not a scam. Read a college textbook on the subject.
College textbook? :laugh:
I know you keep posting that to be TIC, but come on, man! You can do better than that.
Climate change is pushing tropical diseases toward the poles.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ors_picks=true
Okay, salty, you got me. All this time you've just been yanking our chain. Good one! Bet you've had some good chuckles at our expense.
Salty: I can't believe they believe I actually believe all the BS I've been posting LOL!
You got us. I admit, I did take you seriously for awhile. Congrats! :)
June 15th is International Anti-Dengue Fever Day! That was yesterday. How did you celebrate the day salty? Did you have a bar-b-cue?
The virus, and the mosquito (Aedes a.) that spreads it, has been present in the Gulf South, Texas to Florida, since WWII. The virus strain here is non-epidemic, and health officials say we deep south Southerners have built up immunity to the dengue virus. The more virulent strain is common in the jungles of Mexico and south of there. Still, 80% of those who contract dengue fever have mild symptoms. Most never know they had it. For the other 20%, well it can cause severe neurological damage that leads to weird delusional episodes and a drop in IQ of 50+ points in the victims.
You say you had a severe case, salty? I'm sorry.
Back to so-called climate change....
Can someone....anyone....explain what happened to the glaciers that had pushed as far south as Arkansas? It was part of the Wisconsin Glaciation Period, from 85,000 to 11,000 years ago. So, how/why did the climate warm? It was pre-industrial revolution by nearly 11,000 years, so can't blame humans for that warming. Salty...do you have an answer for this perplexing question? (certainly someone with an IQ of 260 knows this)
Then, there was the mini-ice age, concentrated in northern Europe and Canada...and parts of Siberia in Russia, which ended about 400 years ago when....the climate warmed. How can we have global warming before humans invented the internal combustion engine? We are supposed to believe that humans ARE the cause of global warming. That's what the fruitcakes tell us. WE cause warming. Right?
So, it's a really simple question....how can there have been warming prior to human activity of using fossil fuels?
It's funny how no fruitcake wants to tackle this simple question.
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
Dawg80, it is all about the time it takes to warm the planet by solar radiation and increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Naturally, it takes thousands of years. Burning fossils fuels in huge amounts reduces the time to 150 years.
How long do you think it took to melt all those massive 2 mile thick ice sheets?
The Political Legacy Of The Paris Accord Departure
By Foster Friess – – Thursday, June 8, 2017
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Now the Republicans are the party of “the little guy” — the truckers, the farmers, welders, secretaries, waitresses — and the Democrats have become the party of the big money interests, Google, Facebook, George Soros, Bloomberg. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.
The billionaire country club Democrats and their brethren in the media are not going to have their incomes affected like people in the colonies whose livelihood is dependent on abundant low cost energy. We in the “colonies” resent dictatorial policies emanating from the “kingdom of D.C.”
In an eight-minute video with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul ridicules the notion that the oceans will rise 100 feet in the next 100 years by pointing out that the oceans were 300 feet lower eons ago which allowed migration across the Bering Strait.
Isn’t it interesting how the term ‘global warming’ has morphed to climate change?
NASA estimates that steps advocated now would reduce temperatures by 0.2 degrees centigrade over 100 years.
Certainly man has had an influence in the changing environment and air quality since the first caveman started the first fire, but how does that fire or all the subsequent sport utility vehicles and coal fired plants compare to the natural causes which have spawned seven ice ages, one coming all the way down to the northern boundary of Florida.
Everyday Democrats see through the silliness of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer saying that Mr. Trump has destroyed the future of two generations of Americans.
The controls on two pollutants, PM2.5 and ozone, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, are the ones most linked to health issues such as asthma attacks, hospitalization and reduced mortality with more than 90 percent of the benefit from controlling PM2.5.
According to the World Health Organization of the United Nations, that PM2.5 across the United States is 8.3 micrograms per cubic meter (UG/M3), similar to Iceland and New Zealand, which are 7.6 and 8.0 per cubic meter, respectively.
What are they in the countries which are ridiculing our president and chastising him for “bailing out” and endangering the world? France is 12.1, the United Kingdom 12.2, Germany 13.5 and Japan 14.6. All significantly higher than our 8.3.
Guess what the European standard is? 25 UG/M3.
So, we here in the United States have been doing a far better job of controlling pollutants than the rest of the world, well before the Paris Accord was signed in 2015.
The everyday Democrats see President Obama, sending $1 billion of their taxpayer money (without their approval, channeled through Congress). How much has Russia sent into the Green Climate Fund? Answer: $0.00. China? Zero. India? Also zero, zilch, nada.
Here’s a very impressive comment from the Pakistanis:
“Given the future economic growth and associated growth in the energy sector, the peaking of emissions in Pakistan is expected to take place much beyond the year 2030.
An exponential increase of greenhouse gas emissions for many decades is likely to occur before any decrease in emissions can be expected.”
Rand Paul says Russia is allowed to increase their carbon footprint 50 percent while we’re required to reduce ours 20 percent, and China is not required to do anything.
So the $1 billion the leader of the country club Democrats, President Obama, sent went to countries like Kenya, Thailand, Philippines, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Vietnam.
An organization called Transparency International has a Corruption Perceptions Index. In 2014, they ranked the major countries that got grants from the workers of America. Those countries ranked between 25-43 on their Corruption Perceptions Index. Zero is perceived as highly corrupt and 100 is very honest, clean and not corrupt.
Has the media dug deeply to find out how much of these workers’ dollars were siphoned to offshore bank accounts or cronyism that inflated the price of contracts?
Jake Tapper could cause his reputation to soar if he put his journalistic investigators on such a topic rather than passing along the exaggerations of the religion of climate change.
How about the $26.6 million that went to the country of Vanutu to expand the use of “climate information services” in order to “ensure adaptation planning and policy implementation is informed by the right data”? So, basically the money was spent to “create a necessary base to underpin awareness-raising and long-term policy planning around climate change.” No wind turbines. No solar panels. No hydroelectric dams. But Vanutu did get $26.6 million of really great data.
The new breed of country club Democrats are not evil and are not stupid any more than the Republican country club types were/are; they’re simply misinformed.
MORE
http://fosterfriess.com/2017/06/09/t...ord-departure/
In 1960 CO2 was at 317 ppm and now, as of 2016, it's at 392 ppm. It has peaked at 400+ at times over the past several years, due to seasonal reasons. But the sustained level, as of now, is 392. The last time our atmosphere had this high level of CO2 was about 800,000 years ago, with levels reaching 600 ppm (unusually high level of volcanic activity). And, the Earth's average surface temps were 11F higher than they are today.
The ocean (the Gulf of Mexico) used to reach as far north as Natchitoches. Down in the Chopin Hills, about 20 miles south of here, you can find fossils of palm trees and fish, and even big sharks! That was the coast some years ago. It might be again!! Cool! I might be just 20 miles from the beach.
Glaciation is "the norm" for Earth. Right now we are in an inter-glaciation period, which generally last for 23,000 years, while glacier periods last for 100,000+ years. Depending on what site you read, we are anywhere between 4,000 and 12,000 years from the start of the next Ice Age. There are indications the Earth could experience another mini-ice age much sooner. All it would take is for the planet to wobble a couple of degrees from it's current tilt. Another factor (beyond our control) is the sun's cycles. Science does NOT know anymore about that than it does about just about everything else. It's all a "good guess" based on current data. But no one knows if the current data is complete, and can never know that.
Here's the thing...since another ice age is inevitable, just a matter of when, we humans can mitigate the effects by warming the planet! That's right, while we can no nothing about the extreme cold that will hit the poles, and creep into what is now Canada and points at that latitude, and Argentina, and points at that latitude in the Southern Hemisphere, we can influence the climate closer to the equator. We might be able to keep the thick ice out of the USA altogether...maybe. At worst we lose Minnesota. But, it is so libtard, who cares? Still, there will be brutally cold winters and very cold summers for most of the known world. Agriculture as we know it will cease to exist. How will we feed people? By introducing global warming now, slowly, we might be able to save future generations from freezing/starving to death. Let's pump CO2 into the atmosphere, but in a controlled/measured manner, and save the world from becoming a giant popsicle!
Just think....our great, great, great etc. grandchildren will thank us for having the foresight to warm the planet!
The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 409 ppm. However, the oceans are absorbing at least half of the CO2 that burning fossil fuels puts into the environment. The oceans are becoming very acidic very quickly, faster than marine life can cope. Coral reefs are dying around the world. If the oceans become dead seas what do you think will happen to life on the land?
Some scientists think that the planet started to enter another "cold spell" around 5000 BC but human activities such as slash and burn agriculture and cattle ranching provided enough greenhouse gases to counter act the reduction in sun radiation. The typical inter-glaciation period doesn't last 23,000 years, more like 6,000 to 10,000 years.
The problem with the current very rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is (1) the human population is now over 7 billion instead of 10 million. (2) most of the people live along the coast in cities, and (3) we don't know for sure how the planet will react to such a rapid release of CO2 and methane gas.
Not 23,000 years? Oh, well, I read that in a college textbook. So much for that source for reliability.
Current interglacial period stands around 11,700 years. The last one was approximately 15,000 years.
It's been a while since I read up on inter-glacial periods but it looks like we are all a bit off the mark. The scientists in this link think that interglacial periods can run between 10,000 and 30,000 years and that there is no predictability to their length.
dawg80, this article is right up your alley,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000482/full
Anyway, so much for Tyler's Dangerous Global Cooling thesis.
That article will take some time to fully digest.
If we are to accept the possibility that human activity has delayed, perhaps permanently, the onset of an ice age, then THANK GOD! Any type of MAJOR climate change will be catastrophic and cause geo-political upheaval, the likes of which we have never seen. It would cause mass population movements. It would shift world power to those parts of the globe least affected....or....cause wars as those displaced will seek to relocate, forcibly, if necessary. Of course, the severity of this "political" strife will depend on how long it takes for the climate to transition. If it takes 100+ years then there would be migration patterns of shifting populations seeking refuge from the worst of the effects. But, a change could be in a much shorter time period....like one year or so, if the climate change is a direct result of the sun's activity.
North Pole Record Summer Cold...
Record Summer Cold Continues At The North Pole
Posted on July 3, 2017 by tonyheller
The short polar melt season is almost half over, and hasn’t actually begun yet.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...318_shadow.png
But no worries. NASA’s top climate prophet says the Arctic is ice-free and we are toast.
I know short term trends are meaningless in the long run but Baton Rouge had a June on the cold end of average (bottom 10 since 1930) and we had the 2nd lowest number of 90 degree days in a June since 1930. We only exceeded the average high twice all month (both 92 avg 91). I am curious if other stations around the country saw a similar trend in June this year. That is a sharp contrast to even 5 years ago where once June 6 rolled around we were at 97 or higher for the rest of the month. It was completely awful. June win this year. I hope it is a trend towards a mild summer.
June was mild. Hopefully the rest of the summer will be too. I have noticed in years past when we had mild winters, we also had a mild summer. Like the temps are staying in a narrower range, not too cold, then not too hot.
Funny side note...have an old friend and her 16-year-old daughter staying with us. They have fallen on hard times and asked if they could stay here until she got back on her feet financially. They had been living in Colorado. The daughter has never lived anywhere but in the mountains where, as recently as last week, that community got a dusting of snow. SHE IS WILTING! I told her May and June were very mild and she hasn't yet seen what a real Louisiana summer looks like. Our friend is from Alabama and lived several years in Shreveport, before moving to Colorado 20+ years ago. So, she is familiar with southern summers. But not the daughter....who either stays in the AC or lounges in our pool.
Point is, we've had a mild summer....so far.
So....the whole greenhouse gas theory has its roots in a 19th French mathematician's experiment using aquarium-size glass cases? Ya mean air trapped in glass and exposed to a heat source...warms up??? Who'd a thunk it? But, that's too easy...
This air pressure theory is quite interesting. Scientists everywhere, even those belonging to the give-me-tons-of-money-and-I'll-say-I believe-in-man-made-global-warming club admit this study is worth a hard look.
As I say, in ALL things, be it evolution, global warming, or Bigfoot! show me the REAL science. That's what I'm interested in. I joke around a lot (and like to yank the chain of certain posters, ahem..) but I am really interested in REAL science.